Loading...
Agenda 04/23/2013 Item # 8A4/23/2013 8.A. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to consider Fred and Marci Wahl's appeal to the Board of Zoning Appeals of a decision of the Collier County Planning Commission in denying Petition BDE- PL20120001428 that requested a 21.5 -foot boat dock extension over the maximum 20 -foot protrusion limit as provided in Section 5.03.06 of the Land Development Code to allow a total protrusion of 41.5 feet for a boat lift on the east side of a boat dock facility in an RSF -4 zone on property described as Lot 11, Isles of Capri Number 1 Subdivision, In Section 5, Township 52 South, Range 26 East, in Collier County, Florida. [Petition ADA- PL201300000041 OBJECTIVE: The petitioner has filed an appeal to the decision of the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) to deny the petitioner's boat dock extension request which occurred at the properly noticed public hearing on December 6, 2012. Upon hearing of a requested appeal, the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) may affirm, affirm with conditions, reverse or reverse with conditions the action of the Planning Commission. CONSIDERATIONS: The Applicant is appealing the CCPC's denial of their request for a 21.5 -foot boat dock extension over the maximum 20 -foot protrusion limit as provided in Section 5.03.06 of the Land Development Code to allow a total protrusion of 41.5 feet for a boat lift on the east side of a boat dock facility in an RSF -4 zone on property hereinafter described as lot 11, Isle of Capri Number 1, Subdivision, Section 5, Township 52 south, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, Folio number 52340400004. The applicant wishes to place a second boat lift on the east side of an existing boat dock facility consistent with a riparian line setback variance, Resolution Number: 12 -71, approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals on April 24, 2012 (see attachment 3). The current boat dock facility was previously approved by the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) for a single boat lift and vessel with Resolution Number: 12 -03, on March 15, 2012 with a total protrusion of 54.6 feet (see attachment 4). The second boat lift on the east side of the property was removed from the site plan at the request of the CCPC at the March 15, 2012 CCPC hearing, at the same time the CCPC recommended denial of the companion variance petition. After the BZA approved the riparian line setback variance, by Resolution Number 12 -71, the petitioners brought forward a petition for a second boat dock extension to the CCPC. The Boat Dock Extension Petition was denied by the CCPC who has final approving authority for boat dock extensions on December 6, 2012. This boat dock extension proposed an amendment to the site plan to show the second lift. It did not propose additional decking area and the entire dock facility would continue to have a total overall protrusion of 54.6 feet, meaning the proposed second boat lift and vessel would be located within the previously approved overall protrusion of 54.6 feet. The CCPC staff report is attached as part of the appeal application (attachment 2) of this Executive Summary. CCPC Action: At the December 6, 2012 CCPC hearing for this petition after discussion and consideration by the Commissioners there was a motion made for denial by Commissioner Brougham, seconded by Commissioner Klein. The motion of denial carried at 5 -3. Packet Page -21- 4/23/2013 8.A. Commissioners Rankin, Keene and Homiak did not support the denial. A copy of the transcript of this portion of the CCPC hearing is included as attachment 1 of this Executive Summary. The Commission found that the petition did not meet primary criteria 2, and 5; further it found that it did not meet secondary criteria 3, and 4. Staff Evaluation: Staff is still recommending approval of the boat dock extension as proposed based on the reasons outlined in the staff report for the original Boat Dock Extension request (see attachment 2, appeal application). The purpose of the petition is to place a second boat lift on the east side of an existing boat dock facility consistent with a riparian line setback variance, Resolution Number: 12 -71, approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals on April 24, 2012 (see attachment 3). The DEP imposes limitations for docks located within Aquatic Preserves. In this case the dock must remain within the existing foot print of the existing decking area or if removed any new proposed dock would be required to not protrude past 4 feet Mean Low Water Line (MLWL). The current dock as well as this proposed additional second boat lift utilizes decking that is within the existing foot print. This current location presents a form of hardship in that it places limitations with regard to potential number and configuration of vessel locations as well as the length of those vessels and boat lifts. The applicant noted in the application that the strong water currents in the Big Marco River render alternative locations for the proposed second boat lift and vessel problematic due to ingress and egress. The lot configuration, the DEP limitations noted above and associated riparian lines place limits on the layout of the dock facility to accommodate the mooring of two vessels and required the approved riparian line Variance. Other neighboring properties moor two vessels and this property owner is requesting the same consideration in requesting the second boat lift. As noted in the attached staff report staff analysis indicates that the request meets four of the five primary criteria. With regard to the six secondary criteria one of the criteria is found to be not applicable, and the request meets four of the remaining five secondary criteria. FISCAL IMPACT: The Appeal request by and of itself will have no fiscal impact on Collier County. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) IMPACT: There is no Growth Management Plan impact. It is anticipated that approval or denial of this appeal will not affect the Growth Management Plan. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: The Board sitting as the Board of Zoning Appeals hears appeals of final actions taken by the Planning Commission. Section 5.03.06.1-1 of the LDC outlines the criteria to be considered for a boat dock extension petition. In order to approve a boat dock extension, at least four out of five of the primary criteria and at least four of the six secondary criteria must be met. Packet Page -22- 4/23/2013 8.A. Primary Criteria 1. Whether the number of dock facilities and /or boat slips proposed is appropriate in relation to the waterfront length, location, upland land use and zoning of the subject property. Consideration should be made of property on unbridged barrier islands, where vessels are the primary means of transportation to and from the property. (The number should be appropriate; typical single - family use should be no more than two slips; typical multi - family use should be one slip per dwelling unit; in the case of unbridged barrier island docks, additional slips may be appropriate.) 2. Whether the water depth at the proposed site is so shallow that a vessel of the general length, type and draft as that described in the petitioner's application is unable to launch or moor at mean low tide (MLT). (The petitioner's application and survey should establish that the water depth is too shallow to allow launching and mooring of the vessel(s) described without an extension.) 3. Whether the proposed dock facility may have an adverse impact on navigation within an adjacent marked or charted navigable channel. (The facility should not intrude into any marked or charted navigable channel thus impeding vessel traffic in the channel.) 4. Whether the proposed dock facility protrudes no more than 25 percent of the width of the waterway, and whether a minimum of 50 percent of the waterway width between dock facilities on either side is maintained for navigability. (The facility should maintain the required percentages.) 5. Whether the proposed location and design of the dock facility is such that the facility would not interfere with the use of neighboring docks. (The facility should not interfere with the use of legally permitted neighboring docks.) Secondary Criteria 1. Whether there are special conditions not involving water depth, related to the subject property or waterway, which justify the proposed dimensions and location of the proposed dock facility. (There must be at least one special condition related to the property; these may include type of shoreline reinforcement, shoreline configuration, mangrove growth, or seagrass beds.) 2. Whether the proposed dock facility would allow reasonable, safe access to the vessel for loading /unloading and routine maintenance, without the use of excessive deck area not directly related to these functions. (The facility should not use excessive deck area.) 3. For single - family dock facilities, whether the length of the vessel, or vessels in combination, described by the petitioner, exceeds 50 percent of the subject property's linear waterfront footage. (The applicable maximum percentage should be maintained.) 4. Whether the proposed facility would have a major impact on the waterfront view of neighboring property owners. (The facility should not have a major impact on the view of a neighboring property owner.) 5. Whether seagrass beds are located within 200 feet of the proposed dock facility. (If seagrass beds are present, compliance with subsection 5.03.06(1) of the LDC must be demonstrated.) 6. Whether the proposed dock facility is subject to the manatee protection requirements of subsection 5.03.06(E)(11) of this Code. (If applicable, compliance with section 5.03.06(E)(11) must be demonstrated.) Packet Page -23- 4/23/2013 8.A. The BZA shall hold a de novo hearing. Based upon its review of the record of the CCPC hearing, and the testimony and other materials presented as part of the hearing on the appeal, the BZA may affirm, affirm with conditions, reverse or reverse with conditions the actions of the CCPC. A majority vote is needed for approval. (HFAC) COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (CCPC) RECOMMENDATION: The CCPC does not hear appeal requests; that is only a function of the Board of Zoning Appeals. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of Zoning Appeals reverse with conditions the action of the Planning Commission's denial of BDE- PL20120001428 thereby granting the boat dock extension, and adopt a resolution reflecting the Board's decision. The resolution will be prepared subsequent to the board's action. Prepared by: Michael Sawyer, Project Manager, Department of Planning and Zoning, Growth Management Division, Planning and Regulation Reviewed by: Michael Bosi, AICP, Interim Director, Department of Planning and Zoning, Growth Management Division, Planning and Regulation Attachments: 1) Minutes of CCPC hearing (12- 6 -12), 2) Appeal Application, 3) Resolution Number: 12 -71, 4) CCPC Resolution Number 12 -03, 5) Minutes of CCPC hearing (3- 15 -12) Resolution to be prepared after BZA meeting and discussion Packet Page -24- COLLIER COUNTY Board of County Commissioners Item Number: 8.8.A. 4/23/2013 8.A. Item Summary: This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to consider Fred and Marci Wahl's appeal to the Board of Zoning Appeals of a decision of the Collier County Planning Commission in denying Petition BDE- PL20120001428 that requested a 21.5 -foot boat dock extension over the maximum 20 -foot protrusion limit as provided in Section 5.03.06 of the Land Development Code to allow a total protrusion of 41.5 feet for a boat lift on the east side of a boat dock facility in an RSF -4 zone on property described as Lot 11, Isles of Capri Number 1 Subdivision, In Section 5, Township 52 South, Range 26 East, in Collier County, Florida. (Petition ADA- PL201300000041 Meeting Date: 4/23/2013 Prepared By Name: SawyerMichael Title: Project Manager,Engineering & Environmental Servic 3/27/2013 3:08:24 PM Approved By Name: BellowsRay Title: Manager - Planning, Comprehensive Planning Date: 3/27/2013 4:50:03 PM Name: PuigJudy Title: Operations Analyst, GMD P &R Date: 3/29/2013 3:25:52 PM Name: BosiMichael Title: Manager - Planning,Comprehensive Planning Date: 4/4/2013 3:08:31 PM Name: MarcellaJeanne Title: Executive Secretary,Transportation Planning Date: 4/10/2013 2:09:01 PM Packet Page -25- Name: AshtonHeidi Title: Section Chief/Land Use- Transportation,County Attor Date: 4/11/2013 4:32:25 PM Name: AshtonHeidi Title: Section Chief/Land Use- Transportation,County Attor Date: 4/15/2013 3:17:45 PM Name: lsacksonMark Title: Director -Corp Financial and Mgmt Svs,CMO Date: 4/15/2013 4:01:26 PM Name: KlatzkowJeff Title: County Attorney Date: 4/16/2013 9:06:30 AM Name: OchsLeo Title: County Manager Date: 4/16/2013 12:06:02 PM Packet Page -26- 4/23/2013 8.A. 4/23/2013 8.A. - December 6, 2012 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida December 6, 2012 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 am. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: ALSO PRESENT: Melissa Keene, Chairwoman Phillip Brougham Diane Ebert Karen Homiak Paul Midney Brad Schiffer Bill Vonier Heidi Ashton - Cicko, Assistant County Attorney Nick Casalanguida, Growth Management Division/Planning & Regulation Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager Mike Bosi, hiterim Director Planning and Zoning Department Page 1 of 30 Packet Page -27- 4/23/2013 8.A. - December 6, 2012 MR. BELLOWS: The board also approved the PUD amendment for Mirasol on the summary agenda, and the Mac Business Center conditional use was continued to the December 1 lth meeting. That's ail I have. CHAIRWOMAN KEENE: Okay. There's no chairman's report. And consent agenda items, we don't have anything shown, but I understand that Buttonwood would like to come back at the end on consent if we — MR BELLOWS: That's correct, if there are changes. CHAIRWOMAN KEENE: Yeah. We can do that. Okay, on to advertised public hearings. First hearing is BDE- PL20120001428, Wahl Boat Dock Extension. If -- everyone wishing to participate on this item, please stand up to be sworn. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRWOMAN KEENE: Petitioner? MR MAXWELL: Good morning. Today we're here to ask for your approval for the additional boat -- Josh Maxwell, from Turrell Hall and Associates. Sorry. This morning we're here to ask for your approval for the second boat lift at the Wahl's Boat Dock. Previously this year we received approval for the footprint of the dock and the total protrusion, and we later received approval from the BCC for the variance for the side setback. And so we're back in front of you today to ask for the additional boat lift so that they can moor their second vessel more safely than they can now. Nice, short and sweet. So if you have any questions, we'd be happy to answer them. CHAIRWOMAN KEENE: Can you go over any changes that have been made since the last time you were here? MR MAXWELL: The only changes is we came back on the consent agenda without the side boat lift on, and you guys approved it. And now we're back asking for that side lift. So new configuration. CHAIRWOMAN KEENE: Okay. COMMISSIONER VONIER: You mentioned boat safety. MR MAXWELL: Uh -huh. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Explain that. MR. MAXWELL: Well, presently they can only side tie to the new dock. And with the waters in the Big Marker River reaching, you know, a couple knots during a flood tide, you don't necessarily want to just moor your boat on the side of a dock, you'd like to be able to pull it away either with mooring piles or in an optimal situation on a boat lift. It also allows you to keep the boat moored out of the water, which in essence can help improve water quality, because you don't have bottom paint in the water all the time. And also just improves safety of the boat. COMMISSIONER VONIER So it was my understanding that at the BCC meeting safety was bandied about, and it was considered to be safety of people getting in and out of the boat. And I didn't see that as being an issue. However, having said what you just said, there are a lot of people that moor boats alongside of piers safely. You can go any place in Naples and see that. So that isn't an absolute impossibility. MR MAXWELL: There's not many places in Collier County where the water velocity reaches what it does in the Big Marker River. And also a lot of those docks also have either mooring piles or boat lifts, you know, to tie the boat up to keep them off the dock. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Is it difficult to moor a boat because of the current? MR. MAXWELL: It can be. It can be very difficult to pull in and out of your slip, especially in that area. CHAIRWOMAN KEENE: Do you have any aerials that show the surrounding boat docks? Nothing — we received this in our package. MR. MAXWELL: Right. CHAIRWOMAN KEENE: You don't have anything of a larger scale? MR MAXWELL: No, not today. Page 7 of 30 Packet Page -28- 4/23/2013 8.A. December 6, 2012 COMMISSIONER VONIER What's the length of the boat you would propose to put on that lift? MR. MAXWELL: Right now they don't have a boat in mind because they can't have a lift. But I think the thought is something in the 30 to 35 -foot range. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Well, having said that in looking at the ability of the county to be fair to everybody, based on the LDC, we have reduced the setback to 9.3 feet. Now, the adjacent property in the future, let's just make an assumption, lens say the owner decides to sell to someone who wants to build a mega house and put in his own boat dock. MR. MAXWELL: Uh -huh. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Now, if he was doing proper due diligence, he would find — he'd say I want to put a 30 or 35 -foot boat in there. And he would find that he doesn't have to, he thinks, stick with a 15 -foot setback because his neighbor got a waiver. So let's make an assumption that he puts in a boat dock and he asks for a waiver and we give him the same waiver. That leaves 18 feet between two rigid structures. And we're talking about landing 30 -foot boats with 18 feet of clearance in a strong current. I don't think it makes sense. I think there's a reason why the LDC was written the way it is, and that was to clear up some of the chaos in boat docks. Case in point, the property to the west of the applicant. That's grandfathered, and it severely impinged upon the Wahl's ability to put in a boat dock. The LDC was meant to correct that. What we appear to be doing is perpetrating the chaos by allowing this. If we allow it here, we should allow it next door if they want to do the same thing. And we had heard at the last meeting when this was presented the first time from yet the other neighbor beyond that one property beyond the property to the east, who said the same thing. They haven't done their boat dock yet either. So what it appears to me is we're compounding a felony by approving a rigid structure in the form of a boat lift. COMMISSIONER RANKIN: As far as the — Pm sorry. CHAIRWOMAN KEENE: Phil? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Several questions. In the application, and this could just be a technicality or semantics, the addition of a second boat slip, define slip versus lift. MR MAXWELL: Well, currently we can moor a boat there. So we can moor a boat in the location of the lift. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay that — MR MAXWELL: So the lift is just to be able to lift it out of the water when its not in use. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: So you're not requesting a slip, because you have the ability and you could moor a 30 -foot boat on the side of that dock any place you wanted to, you're actually requesting a lift? MR. MAXWELL: Right. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. Do you know or not know how many neighbors along that stretch — I think maybe that's why we could have used a larger aerial -- that moor their dock — moor their boat parallel to the current? MR MAXWELL: Parallel or perpendicular? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Perpendicular. Excuse me, its going this way. MR. MAXWELL: There's numerous ones along the way. As you get further to the east there's a lot of parallel to the current mooring, but those are on wider lots so they can fit, you know, a larger boat. And they can also fit a boat on the back side of their terminal platform. Unfortunately, due to the configuration of the neighbor to the west, there's no safe way to get a boat on the back side of this terminal platform. So that's why we're left, you know, the two locations we'd like to put the lifts now. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: But going back to the current issue, its not unprecedented if people will moor alongside of their dock — MR. MAXWELL: No, its not. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM — given the current and so forth. Page 8 of 30 Packet Page -29- 4/23/2013 8.A. - December 6, 2012 MR MAXWELL: Right. It's not truly optimal, but -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: But its not —we're not setting a precedent here, whatever. Secondly, if we presume — I mean, you mentioned a 30 -foot boat is potentially the boat that's going to be moored there, today and also in the prior hearing, yet 30 foot in length, what's the, if there is such a thing, average height of a 30 -foot boat from top to bottom? MR MAXWELL: It's completely dependent on the style of boat. If you were talking about just a center console without any kind of a second station on top of the T top, you're probably looking at seven to eight feet. Anything we put in here, as far as on a K unless it was some sort of a small yacht, which would be very difficult to fit into this narrow area in a small slip, would be smaller — would be lower in a height than the neighboring boathouse. So as far as a visual impact of any of the neighbors, I don't see that being any worse than it currently is. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: If such a boat was put on a -- elevated on a lift, what's the height then? MR. MAXWELL: Like a center console? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I don't know, mine I accept 30 foot in length. MR. MAXWELL: Most boats, you can figure about at maximum seven or eight feet above the waterline. So if you lifted it to the highest you could, say for a hurricane situation, you're probably talking about the top of that boat maybe being — COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Thirteen feet, 14 feet? MR. MAXWELL: From the water. So I would say probably about five to six feet above the — maybe seven feet above the seawall. COMMISSIONER RANKIN: Not a boat with a fishing tower, however. MR. MAXWELL: Right. If you had a tuna tower on anything, it can definitely get up there. CHAIRWOMAN KEENE: Phil, do you have anything else? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: No, except in the resolution, which is right after the staff report. The date needs corrected, if this goes forward, to March 15th is the date we heard this, the original, not the fast. CHAIRWOMAN KEENE: We'll address it on the staff report. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. Other than that, I think Im done. CHAIRWOMAN KEENE: Okay, actually -- COMMISSIONER RANKIN. With all this technology, do we have access to the property appraiser's website and get the GIS system up and see any part of Collier County you want to? CHAIRWOMAN KEENE: I don't think we have that, Doug. COMMISSIONER RANKIN: Well, they've got a computer sitting up there in the expansion as part of the system. MR. BELLOWS: At the podium computer we have this. CHAIRWOMAN KEENE: I don't think it has Internet. COMMISSIONER RANKIN: It doesn't? CHAIRWOMAN KEENE: I don't believe so. COMMISSIONER RANKIN: They have Wifi here. This whole building and the courthouse is full of free Wifi. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: And while he's getting that ready for you, yes, the March 1 st date was the date of the regular agenda item, and that's the date we go with for the approval, even though the consent agenda would have been on the 15th. CHAIRWOMAN KEENE: It's difficult to see how the boats are moored. COMMISSIONER RANKIN: No, that's not great. That's why I was suggesting the property appraiser's, you can zoom in and out as you see ft, and pan. CHAIRWOMAN KEENE: We'll see what we can come up with. COMMISSIONER RANKIN: Because I figured this is going to be something we're going to make use of in the future, that GIS system paid for with tax dollars. There we are. And if you just hit to the -- open the GIS link. Oh yeah, you got it There you go. I use this is all the time. Page 9 of 30 Packet Page -30- 4/23/2013 8.A. December 6, 2012 COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I just looked at these this morning. MR. MAXWELL: So currently the arrow's over our subject property. And then as you can see here, six docks down the way there's a boat moored, you know, shore perpendicular. So perpendicular to the current flow. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: As well as to the left? MR. MAXWELL: Yeah, directly to the west of the boathouse its perpendicular to the current. CHAIRWOMAN KEENE: Okay. Doug, did you have other questions? COMMISSIONER RANKIN: No, I just wanted to see this, and everybody else to have access. Because I imagine not only for this petition, this is going to be a useful tool in the future. CHAIRWOMAN KEENE: Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. I have several questions. I won't go into all of them because -- I went back and looked at this. And rll be very honest with you, I was -- I wanted to see where we went wrong, where all of us thought the same thing. We have a state rule and we have county rules. This is done by the state where they — when this gentleman moved in. They had to take off that T. He did not put it there. Everything is grandfathered in. And at this point he can moor two boats there very easily. A lift, right, is not a safety. A lift is for convenience. And there are tons of boats out there that are not on lifts. If this property had no dock out there, they would have to put up a marginal wharf is that correct? MR- MAXWELL: Yes, it is. COMMISSIONER EBERT: So they only have one way of going to their property. When you put the marginal, you can tie up against the — MR. MAXWELL: Yeah, you'd only be able to tie up against the dock there. But we would, as we've done in other parts of Isles of Capri, try to permit them a boat lift or at least some mooring piles for the same reason, to try and keep the boat off the dock to prevent damage to the rubbering — COMMISSIONER EBERT: That's true. But you also have bumpers for a Boat. You also have fenders as we call them. MR- MAXWELL: Yes. Yes, you do have those but it's not optimal to rely on those solely. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well, I guess in reading this I was more angry at some of the stuff when you go back and you actually picked up the minutes, the minutes of what we had to say here originally. And then when it went to the BZA, the staff report in the executive summary was lacking a lot of things. Here's what they said in the executive summary: The CCPC heard the petition — and I won't read the whole thing -- with a recommendation for denial. The CCPC denied the variance petition because the property owner did not demonstrate there was a hardship to allow the construction of a second boat lift located within the side yard setback. It should be noted that the CCPC approved the companion boat dock extension subject to the elimination of the boat dock lift on the east side. That's really all they said. And when you go back and read our minutes, like Mr. Vonier said, this is more of a convenience. In having two boats, just because you can, does not mean you have to. You tell all the people that come out of Wiggins Pass down in that area they can have two boats? I mean, there's no way. They're lucky they can have one boat. And so I guess its the way that the — there's more than one reason why we did not do this. The pre- existing conditions that are there now, they can park boats. Nobody's denying that And we did give them an extension to put the lift out on the -- what would you say, the southern end of it. So he can put a huge boat in there. And if he was just going to have the smaller boat, which I believe was going to be 22 feet, he had some 30 some feet between there. And yes, I understand there's strong currents. Our boat was on the Mississippi and the same — we had very strong currents too. So I do understand river currents: Pm sure he knows how to operate a boat. I think most people that have one in this area should. But we're not going to be going back over this whole thing today. Excuse me. Because when you re-did the criteria, or when they redid the criteria, there's some things they did not meet. Waterfront length. He only has 75 feet. He wants to go over what he's really allowed in our Land Page 10 of 30 Packet Page -31- 4/23/2013 8.A. - December 6, 2012 Development Code at this point. He should only have half of the 75 feet, and he wants to moor 60 feet of boat. So that's going over the code. That was never brought up. There isn't a problem with water depth. We deal with so many docks that have to go out over the sea grasses, over the mangroves, where just even to get there is long. They have the water depth. He has everything available to him right now. And I don't know, I guess the other thing was I was not that pleased with what I saw in the executive report or in the staff report going to the BCC. It was confusing. And when it came back, there were several reasons — if you read the minutes, there were several reasons why it was not approved, Josh. It wasn't just a hardship. But he can't even prove that I mean, that's one of the things you're supposed to do is prove the hardship. I want to have a boat. I want to be able to get to the boat He didn't have that hardship. And Mr. Brougham even mentioned that his commissioner didn't quite understand, because she was getting stuff and she couldn't understand why we were holding it back. Everybody probably has one boat. We already gave him that lift. So it was very confusing to the way it was presented. And Commissioner Henning in here asked, where's the hardship? Where is all this stuff that he has a problem with? I have so much information on this, I could probably spend an hour reading to you. I'll let other people ask questions, buttons of questions on this. There is --there's just too many in reading this that just does not bode well for this. MR MAXWELL: Okay. Just in quick response, in the Wiggins Pass area we have permitted many, many slips. Many, many docks with two boat lifts for the property owners, because ifs the optimal way to store your boat. And Pd also like you just to look in the areas of Collier County, especially around the Isles of Capri, what the percentage of boats that are on boat lifts. One is for environmental reasons, and two is for the safety of the boat. And also in instances on fast moving water its easier and safer to load on and off your boat when it's on a lift and then put in the water. I've not boated very many areas outside of Collier County. I've lived here all my life and I can tell you the waters in that area can be very, very swift. And so it's not — you may not look at it as a hardship but I look at it as a safety factor that if it was my dock I would definitely want the lift because its much easier to access your boat. COMMISSIONER EBERT: That's true. And we gave him a lift. We did give him a lift. And I also have a GPS on mine. I looked at this. There are several places that don't even have a dock, and there are several with marginal wharfs out here because of the depth of the water. MR. MAXWELL: Uh -huh. That's because of the state criteria. COMMISSIONER EBERT: It's because of the state criteria, you are correct So there's nothing — he has a non - conforming dock. MR. MAXWELL: Uh -huh. COMMISSIONER EBERT: And he can only put this dock back just the way it was before. He cannot change one or add extra boards. So I do not see us adding another boat lift to a non - conforming structure. And there are several there that are not up on lifts. MR. MAXWELL: Several, but — COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes there are. MR. MAXWELL: I would say more than 50 percent are. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have not been through every one, [just went with the GPS and went all around the thing, and you'd be surprised. Thank you. MR. MAXWELL: Uh -huh. CHAIRWOMAN KEENE: Does anyone else have any questions? COMMISSIONER RANKIN: I have one question. Could you put mooring pilings out without coming back to us? MR- MAXWELL: No, I could not. I would need a variance — I would need your approval to put the pilings in for the lift or mooring piles. COMMISSIONER EBERT: They already have mooring pilings. MR. MAXWELL: Not for the side lift. Page 11 of 30 Packet Page -32- 4/23/2013 8.A. December 6, 2012 COMMISSIONER EBERT: Not for the side, but they already have mooring pilings there. CHAIRWOMAN KEENE: Staff report? Thank you. MR SAWYER Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, Mike Sawyer, Project Manager for the petition. I do have one slight clarification. In the purpose description on Page 1 of the staff report, the petition was continued to the 15th. So if there's any confusion on that please let me know. But I did check that. Again, what we're looking at is with the approved variance, in essence what we're looking at is the addition of the second vessel and the lift associated with that. And they are able, because it is an existing dock, to moor the vessel. So it's kind of a question at this point, quite honestly, whether they can have the lift added in. The initial boat dock that you've already approved is for the one at the end. This will be, if you do approve it a second boat dock extension for the second lift. And I`ll answer whatever questions you might have. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Just for the record, and we exchanged some emails on this, Mike, I asked Mike the question of this request is for a BDE, extending 21 and a half feet to a total of 41 and a half feet Whereas, we had previously approved a BDE to 54.6 feet. My questions was, does a new BDE supersede a previous BDE? And I'll let Mike answer. MR. SAWYER Yeah, in conversations with the County Attorney's Office, we were really looking at the first petition for the BDE as being the one that you've already approved -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Correct. MR SAWYER: — at that distance. That's the first BDE. This is the second separate BDE, if you will, for just this second vessel and the associated lift. So it would — the second would not affect or alter the first. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I just wanted to — MR. SAWYER: Correct COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: — bring it forward. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Am I -- you said vessel and lift. Actually, the vessel is not in question. They are allowed to moor a vessel. The only thing in question is the boat lift. COMMISSIONER RANKIN: That's right. MR. SAWYER Correct The reason that I -- and I don't want to confuse anybody. The reason I keep saying, you know, vessel and associated lift is that the criteria in the Land Development Code requires us to — when we're looking at the actual boat dock extension length to include both. COMMISSIONER RANKIN: May I, Madam Chairwoman? CHAIRWOMAN KEENE: Sure. COMMISSIONER RANKIN: My philosophy is we can't go back and change the past. What's here is what's here. And like you said the man can put a boat here anytime he wants. The question is, is which are the neighbors going to be more concerned about, a boat lift being added or a boat maybe cutting loose on the pass that's almost open to the Gulf, or at least a pretty good sized pass. That could cut loose in a quick storm and damage some things or damage the boat at least. And so that's really the question. And I wish that we all wished probably that we could go back and change the past and put things the way they'd like to be, but the dock's already there, they can already put the boat there. The question is are we going to leave it tied up to the dock or hang it up. Now, can we put a restriction on how high the boat and the lift can be? Because, I think that would probably be the thing neighbors are most concerned about. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. The Collier County Planning Commission has the ability to condition a boat dock extension. And if that was an issue, I believe that could be a condition. However, I'm not sure how we would derive at the appropriate height that still makes it — COMMISSIONER RANKIN: We'd have to ask the expert — MR BELLOWS: Yeah. COMMISSIONER RANKIN: — because I don't know how high boat lifts have to be to function. Page 12 of 30 Packet Page -33- -- 4/23/2013 8.A. - December 6, 2012 MR. BELLOWS: Convect. COMMISSIONER RANKIN: These kind anyway. But that was just my thoughts on it MR. BELLOWS: It can be conditioned. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Generally a concern, the height of the boat. And I've been at the site and there's not a line of sight problem from the neighbor. So -- COMMISSIONER RANKIN: Well, I've seen some boat lifts, you know, that can be massive structures. And I've seen others that are relatively unobtrusive. And that's the only thing I would wonder about. CHAIRWOMAN KEENE: Mike, just to get it on the record, even though this extension is only going to 41.5, it's — the other one is to 54, so that still remains. So its still going to be less than the original extension. MR SAWYER Correct CHAIRWOMAN KEENE: Okay. Just so everyone understands. Are there any other questions? COMMISSIONER VONIER: Mike, on criteria five, whether the proposed location in that facility is such that it would interfere with the neighbors, there's been conversation by this board this morning which would appear to lean in that direction, that there might be interference. Which in fact if that criteria were not met would mean that there were two criteria not met which would be enough to disapprove this. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: What interference are you talking about, the one you suggested might happen? COMMISSIONER VONIER: With a future boat dock. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: But that dock on the east has to stay in the same footprint If anything's ever done to it it has to stay in the same -- COMMISSIONER VONIER: The dock has to say, but a boat dock does not have to. That does not define where a boat dock can be, it only outlines where the pier should be if the pier stays in the same position. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Right. COMMISSIONER VONIER Okay? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Right. COMMISSIONER VONIER But that does not necessarily mean that's where they put a boat dock -- or a boat lift, excuse me, Pm using an incorrect term. The point is that they have a right to do something in the future and we potentially could be taking that right away from them. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have a question. CHAIRWOMAN KEENE: Sure. COMMISSIONER EBERT: You're correct, Bill. I had this also circled. The proposed location of the design of the dock facility would not interfere with the site. If you put a boat lift there and you bring this boat up, it will interfere with the site. You will not have that 45. That was one of the reasons that out at the end it would mainly be the owner's, it would be his site, not the neighbors. There are — there are so many things in here that I marked up. He can do — because he is grandfathered with the state and he can moor his boats there, he would be going over his footage that he is allowed. And if you look in this photo — thank you, Doug, for bringing this up, you look across the — look at the long, long docks up to the — I'm going to say the northeast. Those — look how long they have to come out and what little area they have to put their boats in. So as far as currents and every — the other people do it. They do. And if you take -- when I took this and went around with the GPS, if you just kind of go through the islands here, if you go up one, you have a huge boat, which is probably 45, 50 feet that's sticking out there. And they only have -- it looks like a boat dock like this and its just backed up to it. So I think we have done what we should do, and he can have his two boats, but not two boat lifts. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I'm just going to say, I don't seethe problem with having another boat lift. The boat's going to be there, and it's a lot safer, its better out of the water. If there's a storm or a Page 13 of 30 Packet Page -34- 4/23/2013 8.A. December 6, 2012 hurricane that should come up and you don't have time — rve seen new boat lifts go through Charley with the boat still there and the boat lift still there and everybody's else's boat's down wherever, everything's torn apart It's a lot safer when they're new. So I have no problem with it. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Are there additional criteria that we're supposed to look at for lifts more than what we have to do for docks? I mean, is there a basis for us to deny this? MR. SAWYER Again, Mike Sawyer with Planning and Zoning. No, there is not. With the boat dock extension it includes the boat dock surface itself, any applicable lifts and the vessels. The criteria remains the same. As far as from what the LDC says, as far as using those criteria. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: So if you have permission to put a dock, you automatically have permission to put a lift? What basis then do we have for denying it? COMMISSIONER EBERT: It's more than 20 feet. MR. SAWYER Well, with the boat dock extensions, your application needs to include all of those factors in it. And we looked, again, at the same criteria. And that's what the LDC says. rm just — rm trying to call a distinction between what the Land Development Code says and it's been opined before the score card, if you will. And that's what staff puts together with our staff reports. It's the same criteria. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: If we were to move to deny this, what basis could we use? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Well, you've got your criteria that's in your package that you're looking at, and you've already heard some of the commissioners cite criteria that they don't believe is met. So you would have to identify those that aren't met and move to disapprove. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: But in each case the primary and secondary, there's only one criteria that's not met, doesn't there have to be more than one in either one? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: That's been an ongoing debate. But in order to approve it, they have to meet the minimum. Okay, you can still disprove it but I think that we've heard some members at least believe that there's sufficient evidence to support some of the other criteria hasn't been met. So you can probably even fall below those thresholds. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN KEENE: Phil? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Just to comment on that I mean, the staff report cites certain criteria met or not met in their opinion. We don`t necessarily have to agree with the staff opinion. CHAIRWOMAN KEENE: Correct. Mike, looking at the layout at the dimension given where the boat dock would be 12.5 feet. So obviously they'll have to get a boat that stays within that -- you know, to get on the lifts. MR SAWYER Correct. CHAIRWOMAN KEENE: If they don't have a lift, is there any restriction on the width of a boat they could just moor there? MR- SAWYER: In this case, no, because its an existing, if you will, non - conforming dock. So correct, they could put whatever vessel -- CHAIRWOMAN KEENE: They could have a 15 -foot wide boat and intrude more. MR SAWYER: Correct. Look at it as a vehicle, its not permanent. CHAIRWOMAN KEENE: Right. So, I just wanted to make that — COMMISSIONER EBERT: I do have another question. Mike, I believe when Tim Hall was here, and I can find it in my notes if I need to, he did come up and say can we add two feet to this boat dock extension out front if thats — if we don't get the variance and stuff for the second boat lift? Because he said we'll take whatever we can get. They can put that big boat out at the end. And I believe we did give them that extra two feet. Because it is already -- because of the pilings and stuff, rd have to go back to the notes, but he could actually take his big boat and put out at the end of the — he doesn't have to put the tiny boat in there. That boat lift does not have to be tiny. MR. SAWYER: Commissioner, rd have to look at that We would have to actually go back to what is included in the resolution. Most of the time when we've got these resolutions, we include the layout that Page 14 of 30 Packet Page -35- - 4/23/2013 8.A. - December 6, 2012 they propose. And that was for the smaller boat at that time, I believe. But we would have to look at that. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Josh, were both boat lifts the same as far as they were both 12 feet or 12 feet one way and 12 and a half feet the other? MR. MAXWELL: The standard size for most of your smaller boat lifts is 12 and a half feet in width. And until you start getting over -- you know, unless you get to a very beaming 30 -foot boat, they don't start getting wider to 15 until you probably get closer to 40. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. COMMISSIONER RANKIN: While you're here, how high are these? MR. MAXWELL: Depends on the style of boat. One thing, if I could just present one exhibit? Just to clear it up for a few people. There has been discussion of what happens if the neighbor to the east wants to put in a lift. They're approximately 35 feet from the riparian line, so that gives them, you know, over 44 feet till the neighboring structure, if this is approved, which is more than adequate. And for the record, they cannot move that dock further to the west. It has to remain in the same location and configuration. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Josh, could they put a parallel to the shore boat lift in? Is it possible? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Which property? MR. MAXWELL: Are you're talking about the property to the east? COMMISSIONER VONIER: Yeah. MR MAXWELL: It would have to be a minimum of 15 foot off of the riparian line, which would give them approximately 15 feet to put in. So if they wanted to for say a jet ski, they could. It's not optimal. If I was their consultant, I would recommend numerous other locations for them to put it, COMMISSIONER VONIER But to my earlier point, though, we could grant them a variance so they could get into the 15 -foot setback. MR. MAXWELL: They would not need a variance to drive the boat through the setback area. They'd only need the variance for any permanent structure in the — COMMISSIONER VONiER — correct. MR. MAXWELL: — in that setback area. CHAIRWOMAN KEENE: Any other questions? COMMISSIONER EBERT: One other thing. The boat to the west, I believe is a boathouse? And it is only one boat there; is that correct? Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN KEENE: For the record, Josh's response was yes. Okay, does anyone have any other questions before we go to public speakers? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN KEENE: Ray? MR. BELLOWS: The first speaker is Arthur Spiegel, to be followed by John Rogers. MR. SPIEGEL: Good morning, everyone. My name is Art Spiegel. I own a home at 4 West Pelican Street which is east of — COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Can you bring the mic down, please, Mr. Spiegel? MR SPIEGEL: Sure. Is that fine? Which is east of the Wahl residence. You know, when I bought my property a couple of years ago, and when the adjacent property owners, one of whom couldn't be here today because she's actually been sick to her stomach for three days, but she did write a letter. She asked me to make sure that you have it as part of the record, that's from Joan Evans. And the other neighbor, being Tony Rinaldi, had to be in Pennsylvania. But when we bought our property, I a couple of years ago, and they, not aging them, but many, many, many years ago, we felt that we paid for and bought certain rights that now we seem to be losing simply because someone has asked for a variance. We knew what the rules were. We lived by the rules. We knew what would happen if someone built on the property next door. But built in conformity with the laws and the regulations and the codes that were established by you and people before you. But we didn"t think that we would end up losing rights because now people are given variances. Page 15 of 30 Packet Page -36- 4/23/2013 8.A. December 6, 2012 And Pm going to speak strictly for myself when I say I sit in my front yard, which is my little piece of paradise and I look west and I had a commanding view of the Gulf, the sunsets, the river going into the Gulf. There was no way without variances that anyone could ever stop my view. Now there's going to be a boat. And this fellow is a boat builder. I find it a little difficult to understand how a boat builder doesn't know what kind of boat he's putting in at the end of a dock when in fact he's going to have a small boat in one spot. Well, he's not going to have two small boats, matching his and hers. I leave that to you. We go to the next point of my other neighbors looking to the west. They have beautiful commanding views of the bridge. Gorgeous. They're totally blocked now. I will look out at a boat. And I have to tell you, the Wahls built a gorgeous home. It's beautiful. It's. an asset to the community. It took every inch of building space on their property. They are trying to put 50 pounds of potatoes in a 10 -pound sack. And I don't think it is up to any of us to give variances that will take away rights of other people. And I truly ask that you decline in giving this or not allow giving a variance, as been requested. Just want to look at my notes here. Oh, it's my understanding that any boat docks that are to be built today, not non - conforming ones of the past, are to be built parallel to a seawall. Well, in fact, we have a seawall, a brand new seawall where rip-rap was taken out to build a brand new seawall and then rip-rap was put back. Well, that's creating your own problem, in my opinion. Why in fact couldn't a dock been built right along the property? Oh, I know, because the property is only 75 feet wide, and we wanted more dock than that. This isn't right to the taxpayers of the area who have relied on the codes as they were printed and don't feel that we should lose rights because of a variance. Thank you for your time. CHAIRWOMAN KEENE: Just for point of clarification, the BZA already approved the variance, so we don't — we're not in a position to change that. Were looking at the extension. MR. SPIEGEL: But I have the right to complain. CHAIRWOMAN KEENE: Sure, sure. I just wanted to make sure that you understood that had already been approved. MR. SPIEGEL: Yes. But I understand that. But now you're looking for basically another variance. CHAIRWOMAN KEENE: An extension. MR. SPIEGEL: An extension, right, and we are against that. CHAIRWOMAN KEENE: Thank you. MR. SPIEGEL: Thank you. MR. BELLOWS: John Rogers. MR. ROGERS: Good morning, Commissioners. John Rogers. I live at 138 Tahiti Circle. I'm really down here to speak about consistency on how we're applying this on the Isles of Capri. Three times I've been in this exact situation with a legal non - conforming boat dock: 200 Tahiti Circle, 134 Tahiti Circle and on Capris Boulevard. Three times it's been an absolute rule that you may not change one iota. And Commissioner Ebert, you were right on it. You may not change the existing non - conformity and then do anything to increase it. And when, Commissioner Ebert, you were referring to earlier we've really got a state issue here and a county issue here, and if you read the record, this is really screwy. You're exactly right. If you read the entire record, which rve done, there's been a whole lot of smoke and mirrors. And if I may quote the former commissioner, he called it I think you've given me a lot of crap. He's exactly right. What occurred here is they went to the state and said we're going to be good guys and we're going to remove this T and make it an L. But they didn't say and then we're doing that so that we can pull in and get another extension and have a boat dock to the side. Pm in favor of boat docks, rm in favor of boat lifts. I'm just in favor of doing it right. And this has not been done right. I respectfully disagree that he can put a vessel there outside of the 20 feet without the BDE that he's currently requesting. Otherwise he wouldn't be here. So when you gentlemen say that he can put a 34 or a 44 -foot boat there right now, no, he can't That is not under your code. The BDE includes a vessel. And the gentleman over here that's -- Pm telling you, code enforcement is on Isles of Capri ticketing people whose boats overhang their 20 -foot or 25 -foot dock if Page 16 of 30 Packet Page -37- 4/23/2013 8.A. - December 6, 2012 the boat is sticking out. And they're making my neighbor apply for a BDE for his boat, not for his lift, because its a 31 -foot boat in a 21 -foot slip. So I don't agree. If this man could put his boat there, he wouldn't have to ask you for an extension. Because vessel in your code its all defined together, vessel, lift, dock, mooring facility. So we're getting a few more smoke and mirrors with regard to that, in my opinion. You know, I have my boat dock Actually, Turrell and Associates did it for me. It was a long four -year expensive process. I think this man's entitled to his. But I just think he hasn't properly come forward and told you his plan from the beginning, what he wanted to do. I want to say when I owned the house at 134 Tahiti Circle, I had three pilings that were out. One that I had a boat dock extension -- rm sorry, it was a legal non - conforming dock. I wanted to move one of the piles six inches so that a boat could get in and out more easily. And the state said absolutely positively not. Any -- you can remove it but you can't move it anywhere else. If you look at the end of what you've already approved, and I know we're not reopening that can of worms, but that's exactly what we did at the end of this dock, we allowed him to move the non - conformity. So as Commissioner Vonier, I believe its pronounced, stated at the beginning of this, we're not fixing it at all, we're perpetuating the problem. And I really hope that you'll stop it here, send it back, maybe he can reconfigure it and come up with his two lifts some other way if he can. But I think this BDE absolutely needs to be denied, thank you. CHAIRWOMAN KEENE: Thank you. MR. BELLOWS: No other speakers have registered. CHAIRWOMAN KEENE: Ray, can you comment on the statement that he cannot moor a boat there and clarify for the record? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: A 30 -foot. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, for the record, Ray Bellows. I think he's referring to as Mike Sawyer had previously indicated today, that the measurement for an extension going into the waterway includes the boat. And that's what they're requesting with this boat dock extension, the lift plus the boat overhang. CHAIRWOMAN KEENE: Okay. So without the — MR. BELLOWS: Without the boat lift they can still moor the boat there. CHAIRWOMAN KEENE: Hold on. Phil? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I think the real question, Mike, is going to Mr. Roger's comment, if he were to moor without a lift, pull in a 30 -foot boat which exceeds a 20 -foot limit, is that permitted under our code? Without a BDE to allow that. MR BELLOWS: Yes. My understanding is the boat is not a structure, therefore it's not subject to the setback requirements that a structure would be, such as the boat lift. So in measuring the depth of the boat dock, its the dock and the extension of the boat into the waterway. And if there's -- if the boat is moored to the side of the dock -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: That's the question. MR. BELLOWS: — then its not extending out past what was approved. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Thanks. CHAIRWOMAN KEENE: Phil, did that help? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN KEENE: Doug? COMMISSIONER RANKIN: My question then, rm a little confused here, because we have one branch of government saying that the boat cannot extend past the end of the dock and the other branch of government saying that the boat doesn't count. My question is, because I can't see in the items I've got, how long can a boat be attached to this dock? Because I don't see dimensions on what rve got here that can tell me that. And before we get into the code enforcement issue that he raised, or is he wrong about that code enforcement issue? CHAIRWOMAN KEENE: Josh, can you? MR. MAXWELL: Oh, yeah. We previously received approval for a 54.6 -foot boat dock extension. Page 17 of 30 Packet Page -38- 4/23/2013 8.A. December 6, 2012 And as it's been applied in other areas of the county, your dock and boat cannot extend past that 20 feet without that BDE. Now, we have a boat dock extension for 54.6 feet. So I can't put in a 55 -foot vessel. That's how it's been applied to many of our projects in the past. CHAIRWOMAN KEENE: Doug, does that help? COMMISSIONER RANKIN: Yeah, but I assume that there is some — you said there's rip -rap up against the seawall. So I assume the whole 40 feet is not useable. MR MAXWELL: I would say -- I mean, the bow of your boat typically draws the least. And that rip-rap is mainly for scour protection, that was brought up earlier. You guys have — at the end of this dock the waters exceed 20 feet. And I would venture to say there's very few seawall panels on Isles of Capri that extend past maybe 15 feet. So scour protection is not a necessity, but its highly recommended to ensure the security of that seawall. COMMISSIONER RANKIN: And the other question is how high -- how short could we live with here in a height? MR MAXWELL: Oh, as far as a height, I think it would be very difficult for us to get a boat higher than the neighboring boathouse, higher than the peak of that And if that is to be a stipulation, that is something that I think the Wahls may be able to live with. But that would be, I would say, a reasonable — that way we're not asking for anything more than what the neighbors have. COMMISSIONER RANKIN: What I was listening to is this gentleman saying he's not going to lose this beautiful view and now look at a boat. MR MAXWELL: Right now he's got a boathouse to look at. So, I mean, he's not losing any view of the Gulf of Mexico. MR-ROGERS: Not true. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I've got a question. In the criteria, Josh, and staff, in the criteria the waterfront length, he does not -- he is not meeting, okay? Because it's only supposed to be half of the 75 feet. He wants to put 60 feet of boat in there. That's number one. The criteria number two, the water depth. That is not met. He has to bring the dock out so far because of the -- there is so much water here. And this is mainly why we do these boat dock extensions is there is not enough water. So he has not met the criteria to this at all. And because of the grandfathering of the state where you can't put an extra board or anything on, but they can still put in boats there, that's where I'm going. Because he can still bring a boat on that long side. And if that's grandfathered in, as far as the dock being grandfathered in, you can put a boat there but you need to come to the county for the boat lift. So that's what we're going against. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN KEENE: Mike? MR SAWYER: Yeah, just to clarify. As the staff report indicates, you are correct, they do not meet one of the primary criterion. In other words, as far as water depth. And as far as second criteria, they do not meet criteria number three, and that is the vessel length. And then criteria six actually is not applicable in this case. So they don't meet one of the primary and one of the secondary. CHAIRWOMAN KEENE: Okay. Okay. MR. SAWYER: Just to be clear. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Thank you. MR. SAWYER: I do have a copy of the resolution for the first boat dock. If you want, I can put that on the visualizer. CHAIRWOMAN KEENE: Please. MR. SAWYER I always do this upside down, so I apologize. It does show one vessel at the end. CHAIRWOMAN KEENE: Okay. And as previously stated, I understand the -lift will be the same size, regardless of the side that its located on. So I don't think changing anything around will change that. So -- okay, are there any other questions before we close the public hearing? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN KEENE: Okay. Does anyone have a motion? Page IS of 30 Packet Page -39- 4/23/2013 8.A. - December 6, 2012 COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I do. M make a motion that we deny the boat dock extension on the basis of not meeting criteria number two and five of primary and criteria number three and four of secondary, and that obviously reflects some disagreement I have personally with staffs recommendation. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Second. CHAIRWOMAN KEENE: Okay. So we have a motion to deny the petition and a second. All in favor? COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN KEENE: All opposed? COMMISSIONER RANKIN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN KEENE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. THE COURT REPORTER: Could I see a show of hands? CHAIRWOMAN KEENE: Opposed? Okay, so one, two, three, four, five; 5 -3. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Raise your hands if there's any — let's do it over again. If there's any — CHAIRWOMAN KEENE: It's 5 -3. So the petition is denied 5 -3. MR- SAWYER Sorry, Commissioners, just for the record, if I could get the denial criteria numbers? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: On the basis of not meeting criteria two. On primary of criteria two and five was my motion. And on secondary, not meeting criteria three and four. MR SAWYER: Thank you, Commissioners. CHAIRWOMAN KEENE: Okay. Since we're almost at break time, why don't we go ahead and take a break and then we will pick up with Buttonwood. It's 10:13 so let's return at 10:30. Thank you. (Recess.) CHAIRWOMAN KEENE: Welcome back from break. Our next advertised public hearing is PUDA- PL20120001105, Buttonwood Preserve. And if everybody wishing to testify, please rise and be swom in. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRWOMAN KEENE: And do we have any disclosure from Planning Commissioners? Start with you Phil. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: No, nothing. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes, I did speak with Mr. Anderson. CHAIRWOMAN KEENS: Anyone else? COMMISSIONER VONIER: No. CHAIRWOMAN KEENE: Okay. MR. NEAL: Good morning, Madam Chairman. Pm Pat Neal, Neal Communities, 8210 Lakewood Ranch Boulevard, Bradenton, Florida. I have been sworn. I would Iike to do three minutes of introduction of our firm and our team. rve been building in Bradenton since 1968 and currently build in eight jurisdictions, but I've never built before in Collier County, and I hope to have a — I hope that you have a happy future with me over the next few years. Our company has built about 8,700 homes. Mostly we build all- American communities, that is multi-aged communities that has families, people with middle age and income and also active adults. We have a very strong financial team with professionals who have been in the business for a long time. I've done about 90 approvals in Manatee County. We primarily build in Manatee and Sarasota County. Page 19 of 30 Packet Page -40- 4/23/2013 8.A TURRELL, MALL & ASSOCIATES, INC. MARINE & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING 3584 Exchange Avenue, Suite B • Naples, Florida 34104 -3732 • (239) 643 -0166 • Fax (239) 643 -6632 December 28, 2012 Collier County Government Growth Management Division Planning and Regulation 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 RE: Wahl BDE — CCPC Appeal BDE- PL20120001428 8 Pelican Street West Commissioners, ADA- PL20130000004 Rev:1 FRED & MARCI WAHL — BOAT DOCK EXTENSION APPEAL DATE: 1/4/13 DUE: 1118/13 On behalf of Fred and Marci Wahl we are appealing the denial from the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) of BDE- PL20120001428 from the December 6, 2012 Planning Commission Hearing. On May 17, 2012 we received approval from the CCPC for the dock protrusion and end lift in Resolution 12 -03 (BDE- PL20110001409). However, the CCPC did not recommend approval for the Variance (PL- 20110001410) which was required for the side lift and therefore specifically excluded the side lift from the BDE approval. On April 24, 2012 the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) approved the Variance for the reduced side setbacks for the side lift (Resolution 12 -71). A second BDE was submitted to County Staff for the side lift and was denied by the CCPC on December 6, 2012. Their motion of denial was based on claims that the proposed lift did not comply with primary conditions 2 and 5 along with secondary conditions 3 and 4. We respectfully disagree with the CCPC's denial and have explained how our plan meets (or does not meet) the specific conditions in the motion. Our responses are shown below in bold. Primary Condition 2: Whether or not the water depth at the proposed site is so shallow that a vessel of the general length, type, and draft as that described in the petitioner's application is unable to launch or moor at mean low tide (MLT). ((The petitioner's application and survey should show that the water depth is too shallow to allow launch and mooring of the vessel (s) described without an extension)) As stated in our application and the Staff Report we do not meet this primary condition due to the fact that the existing dock is a grandfathered structure. The proposed lift will accommodate a vessel which is currently allowed to moor within the slip as shown. Packet Page -41- 4/23/2013 8.A. Wahl BDE — CCPC Appeal BDE- PL20120001428 Page 2 of 3 Primary Condition 5: Whether or not the proposed location and design of the dock facility is such that the facility would not interfere with the use of the neighboring docks. ((The facility should not interfere with the use of legally permitted neighboring docks)) As presented in our application, the proposed docking facility will not interfere with the use of any neighboring docks. There is approximately 44 feet between the eastern neighboring dock and the proposed boat lift pilings. This would allow the neighbor to moor a vessel up to 95 feet moored shore- normal due to the DEP restrictions for grandfathered structures. A vessel of this size would also require a BDE from the county. The condition also states that the applicant's facility should not interfere with the use of legally permitted neighboring docks. To our knowledge neither neighbor has received a permit from the DEP, the ALOE, or a BDE from Collier County. However, they are also grandfathered structures and as explained above, we do not interfere with them. Therefore we disagree with the CCPC's decision that our client does not comply with Primary Condition 5. We agree with Staffs decision that we meet this criteria. Secondary Criteria 3: For single-family dock facilities, whether or not the length of the vessel, or vessels in combination described by the petitioner exceeds 50 percent of the subject property's linear waterfront footage. ((The applicable maximum percentage should be maintained)) As stated in our application and the Staff Report we do not meet this secondary criteria, but the dock and vessels allowed are grandfathered. The proposed lift does not add additional coverage with respect to the shoreline.. Secondary Criteria 4: Whether or not the proposed facility would have a major impact on the waterfront view of the neighboring waterfront property owners. ((The facility should not have a major impact on the view of either property owner.)) As shown in our application, we proposed to rebuild the existing dock and add two boat lifts within the existing pre - empted area. Earlier this year we received approval to rebuild the dock and add the lift located on the terminal platform. This BDE is for the side lift only and therefore any discussion of the impact to neighboring views should be restricted to the lift in question. Since the proposed dock and lifts are located within the existing pre - empted area, there should be no negative effect on the waterfront view of the neighboring properties. Therefore we disagree with the CCPC's decision that our client does not comply with Secondary Condition 4. We agree with Staffs decision that we meet this criteria and request approval of the presented BDE. Packet Page -42- 4/23/2013 8.A. Wahl BDE — CCPC Appeal BDE- PL20120001428 Page 3 of 3 As stated in the BDE application it must be determined that we meet at least 4 of 5 Primary Conditions and 4 of 6 Secondary Conditions. We have described how our project complies with this criteria and have enclosed the Staff Reports from the Collier County Planning Department. Staff determined that we met this criteria and recommended approval for this BDE and we ask that you proceed with Staff s recommendation. For your review I have included the following exhibits: A. First BDE application, showing the requested dock and two lifts. B. Staff Report for BDE- PL20110001409, recommending approval for the dock and two lifts. C. Resolution 12 -03, the BDE approval for the dock and end lift only. D. Second BDE application, showing the requested side lift. E. Staff Report for BDE- PL20120001428, recommending approval for the side lift. F. Variance application, showing the requested dock and two lifts. G. Staff Report for PL- 20110001410, recommending approval for the reduced side setback. H. Resolution 12 -71, the Variance approval for the reduced side setback to accommodate the side lift. I. DEP Exemption 11 -03 04778-002-EE66, State and Federal approval for the requested dock and two lifts. J. Existing conditions survey. K. Large scale aerial exhibit, showing the protrusion and configuration of neighboring docks. Please contact me if you have any questions. Regards, Joshua W. Maxwell, E.I.T. /Project Manager Enclosures Packet Page -43- COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION/ PLANNING AND REGULATION 4/23/2013 8.A. CO 6 -ir County 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252 -2400 FAX (239) 252 -6358 www.colliergov.net APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL Section 250 -58 Sec. 250 -58. Appeal from decision of administrative official. (a) Appeals to a board of zoning appeals or the governing body, as the case may be, may be taken by any person aggrieved or by any officer, department, board, or bureau of the governing body or bodies in the area affected by the decision, determination or requirement made by the administrative official. Such appeals shall be taken within 30 days by filing with the administrative official a written notice specifying the grounds thereof. The administrative official shall forthwith transmit to the board all papers, documents, and maps constituting the record of the action from which an appeal is taken. Due public notice of the hearing on the appeal shall be given. Upon the hearing, any parry may appear in person or by attorney. A decision shall be reached by the appellate body within 30 days of the hearing; otherwise, the action appealed from shall be deemed affirmed. An affected property owner is defined as an owner of property located within 300 feet of the property lines of the land for which the interpretation is effective. An aggrieved or affected party is defined as any person or group of persons which will suffer an adverse effect to an interest protected or furthered by the Collier County Growth Management Plan, Land Development Code, or Building Code(s). The alleged adverse interest may be shared in common with other members of the community at large, but shall exceed in degree the general interest in community good shared by all persons. A request for appeal shall be filed in writing. Such request shall state the basis for the appeal and shall include any pertinent information, exhibits and other backup information in support of the appeal. In accordance with Resolution No. 2007 -160, the fee for the application and processing of an appeal is $1,000.00 and shall be paid by the applicant at the time the request is submitted. The Board of Zoning Appeals shall hold an advertised public hearing on the appeal and shall consider the administrative decision and any public testimony in light of the growth management plan, the future land use map, the Land Development Code or the official zoning atlas. The Board of Zoning Appeals shall adopt the County official's administrative decision, with or without modifications or conditions, or reject the administrative decision. The Board of Zoning Appeals shall not be authorized to modify or reject the County official's administrative decision unless such Board finds that the decision is not supported by substantial competent evidence or that the decision is contrary to the growth management plan, the future land use map, the Land Development Code or the official zoning atlas. Requests for Appeal of Administrative Decision should be addressed to: Growth Management Division /Planning and Regulation Attn: Business Center 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, Florida 34104 Ask Packet Page -44- COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION/ PLANNING AND REGULATION 4/23/2013 8.A. for County 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252 -2400 FAX (239) 252 -6358 www.colliergov.net APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION OF AnIkAINICTRATIVF ' nFFICIAL a4�ti11V11 L..7 -V`J� ADA- PL20130000004 Rev:1 PROJECT NUMBER FRED & MARCI WAHL — BOAT DOCK PROJECT NAME EXTENSION APPEAL DATE: 1/4/13 DATE PROCESSED DUE: 1/18/13 NAME OF OWNER APPLICANT INFORMATION Fred and Marci Wahl ADDRESS 8 Pelican Street West TELEPHONE # _ CITy Naples STATE FL Zip 34113 CELL # (514)662 -0672 E -MAIL ADDRESS FredWahlinFlorida @Yahoo.com NAME OF AGENT /APPLICANT Joshua W. Maxwell FIRM Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc. FAX # ADDRESS 3584 Exchange Avenue CITY Naples STATE FL Zip 34104 TELEPHONE # (239)643 -0166 CELL # FAX # (239)643 -6632 E -MAIL ADDRESS Josh @ Turrell - Associates.com REQUEST DETAIL Appeal of Application No. ARIPL- BDE- PL20120001428 (Please reference the application number that is being appealed) Attach a statement for the basis of the appeal including any pertinent information, exhibits and other backup information in support of the appeal. Submit required application fee in the amount of $1,000.00 made payable to the Board of County Commissioners. Packet Page -45- 4/23/2013 8.A. EXHIBIT A FIRST BDE APPLICATION Packet Page -46- e-r County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT DEPT. OF ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW UI WW.COLLIERGOV.NET 4/23/2013 8.A. 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 3+104 (239) 252 -2400 FAX (239) 252 -6358 DOCK FACILITY EXTENSION OR BOATHOUSE ESTABLISHMENT PETITION APPLICATION SUBMITTAL INSTRUCTIONS The following information is intended to guide you through the process of a Dock Facility Extension or Boathouse Establishment Petition, from completing the application packet to the final determination by the Collier County Planning Commission. Prior to submittal of the attached Dock Facility Extension or Boathouse Establishment Petition application, you must attend a pre - application meeting to determine if, pursuant to Land Development Code Section 5.03.06, the option of a dock facility extension or boathouse establishment is available to you and to discuss the location, length /protrusion and configuration of the proposed boat dock facility. The pre- application fee is $500.00 (to be credited toward application fee upon submittal.) In order to process your request, all accompanying materials must be completed and submitted with the application (SEE ATTACHED CHECKLIST). The application fee for a Dock Facility Extension or Boathouse Establishment is currently $1500.00 plus $925.00 for required legal advertising. An additional amount for property owner notifications will be billed to the applicant prior to the hearing date. Within ten (10) days of the submission of your application, you will receive notification that your petition is being processed. Accompanying that response will be a receipt for your check and the number assigned to your petition. This petition number should be noted on all future correspondence regarding your petition. The Department of Zoning and Land Development Review will provide for legal notification of surrounding property owners within 500 feet of the subject property and newspaper advertising (required fifteen (15) days prior to the Planning Commission Hearing date). You will be notified by mail of your hearing date and will receive a copy of the Staff Report. It is recommended, but not required, that you or your agent attend the Planning Commission meeting. If you have any further questions or need assistance completing this application, contact Department of Zoning and Land Development Review at 403 -2400. Packet Page -47- e>r county COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT DEPT, OF ZONING 8 LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW WWW.COLLIERGOV.NET 4/23/2013 8.A. 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252 -2400 FAX (239) 252 -6358 li # • : l + ! s is THIS PETITION IS FOR (check one): ® DOCK EXTENSION ❑ BOATHOUSE ADA- PL20130000004 Rev:1 PROJECT NUMBER FRED & MARCI WAHL _ BOAT DOCK PROJECT NAME DATE: 1/4/13 N APPEAL DATE PROCESSED DUE: 1/18/13 APPLICANT INFORMATION NAME OF APPLICANT(S) FRED AND MARCI WAHL ADDRESS 100 PORT DOCK RD. CITY REEDSPORT STATE OR ZIP 97467 TELEPHONE # CELL # FAX # E -MAIL NAME OF AGENT JOSHUA W. MAXWELL, E.I.T. FIRM TURRELL. HALL & ASSOCIATES ADDRESS 3584 EXCHANGE AVENUE CITY NAPLES STATE FL ZIP 34104 TELEPHONE # (239) 643 -0166 CELL # (239)250 -3242 FAX # (239) 643 -6632 E -MAIL MAXWELL (CDTURRELL- ASSOCIATES.COM BE AWARE THAT COLLIER COUNTY HAS LOBBYIST REGULATIONS. GUIDE YOURSELF ACCORDINGLY AND ENSURE THAT YOU ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THESE REGULATIONS. Packet Page -48- COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT DEPT. OF ZONING 8 LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW WWW.COLLIERGOV.NET 4/23/2013 8.A. 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252 -2400 FAX (239) 252 -6358 I PROPERTY LOCATION I Address of Subject Property 8 PELICAN STREET WEST Section/Township /Range 05/52/26 Property LDX 52340400004 Subdivision ISLE OF CAPRI Unit 1 Lot(s) 11 Block(s) Current Zoning and Land use of Subject Property RSF- 1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ADJACENT DESCRIPTION Narrative description of project (indicate extent of work, new dock, replacement, addition to existing facility, any other pertinent information): We are proposing to rebuild an existing dock on Isle of Capri at 8 West Pelican, Naples, Collier County Florida The site is more specifically located at Latitude 25deg 58' 36.35" and Longitude 81 deg 43' 53.97" in Section 5 Township 52 South, Range 26 East. The existing conditions consisted of a grandfathered 363 sq ft dock and an upland single- family residence that is currently being demolished and a new home constructed in its place. The natural shoreline is 75' of concrete seawall with rip rap along the entire length. The waterway is approximately 800' from MHW to MHW and the existing structure protrudes 59 ft. into the waterway (7.3% of the width of the waterway). Please see attached survey and existing conditions drawing for your review. The proposed plan is to rebuild the existing dock within the same footprint and add two boat lifts along the eastern side of the dock and at the end of the terminal platform. The proposed structure will protrude 55 ft from the MHWL (6.8% of the width of the waterway), 4 ft. less than the existing structure Hand railings will be placed along the western side of the access platform and the Packet Page -49- Zoning Land Use N RSF -1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL S N/A BIG MARCO RIVER E RSF -1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL W RSF -1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DESCRIPTION Narrative description of project (indicate extent of work, new dock, replacement, addition to existing facility, any other pertinent information): We are proposing to rebuild an existing dock on Isle of Capri at 8 West Pelican, Naples, Collier County Florida The site is more specifically located at Latitude 25deg 58' 36.35" and Longitude 81 deg 43' 53.97" in Section 5 Township 52 South, Range 26 East. The existing conditions consisted of a grandfathered 363 sq ft dock and an upland single- family residence that is currently being demolished and a new home constructed in its place. The natural shoreline is 75' of concrete seawall with rip rap along the entire length. The waterway is approximately 800' from MHW to MHW and the existing structure protrudes 59 ft. into the waterway (7.3% of the width of the waterway). Please see attached survey and existing conditions drawing for your review. The proposed plan is to rebuild the existing dock within the same footprint and add two boat lifts along the eastern side of the dock and at the end of the terminal platform. The proposed structure will protrude 55 ft from the MHWL (6.8% of the width of the waterway), 4 ft. less than the existing structure Hand railings will be placed along the western side of the access platform and the Packet Page -49- COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT DEPT. OF ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW WWW.COLLIERGOV.NET 4/23/2013 8.A. 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252 -2400 FAX (239) 252 -6358 northern side of the terminal platform to restrict the mooring to the two boat lifts There is no proposed dredging with this proiect. The following must be accompanying this application: 1) A signed, sealed survey depicting mean high water (MHW) and mean low water (MLW), and relevant water depths measured at no less than 5 -foot increments 2) A chart, drawn to scale, of the waterway at the site, depicting the waterway width, the proximity of the proposed facility to any adjacent navigable channel, the proximity of the proposed facility to docks, if any, on the adjacent lots, and the unobstructed waterway between the proposed facility and the opposite bank or any dock facility on the opposite bank 3) A site plan to scale showing dimensions and location of existing and proposed dock structures, as well as a cross section showing the facility in relation to MHW /MLW and shoreline (bank, seawall or rip -rap revetment). I SITE INFORMATION I Width of waterway: 800 ft.; Measurement from ❑ plat ® survey ❑ visual estimate ❑ other (specify) Total property water frontage: 75 ft. Setbacks: provided 9.3 & 29.7 ft. required 15 ft. Total protrusion of proposed facility into water: 54.6 ft. Number and length of vessels to use facility: 1. 25 ft., 2. 40 ft., 3. ft. List any additional dock facilities in close proximity to the subject property and indicate the total protrusion into the waterway of each: Adiacent docks, one to the east is approximately 35ft into the waterway and the docks to the west protrude approximately 37ft into the waterway. For all petitions, in the case of signs located on properties 1 acres or more in size, the applicant shall be responsible for erecting the required sign(s). what is the size of the property? 0.25 ACRES Packet Page -50- COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT DEPT. OF ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW WWW.COLLIERGOV.NET 4/23/2013 8.A. 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34404 (239) 252 -2400 FAX (233) 252 -6358 Official Interpretations or Zoning Verifications: To your knowledge, has there been an official interpretation or zoning verification rendered on this property within the last year? ❑ Yes ® No If so, please provide copies. The following criteria, (pursuant to Section 5.03.06 of the Land Development Code) shall be used as a guide by staff in determining its recommendation to the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC), and by the CCPC in its decision to approve or deny a particular Dock Extension request. In order for the CCPC to approve the request, it must be determined that at least 4 of the 5 primary criteria, and at least 4 of the 6 secondary criteria, must be met. Please provide a narrative response to the listed criteria and /or questions. Attach additional pages if necessary. Packet Page -51- er coxnty 4/23!2013 8.A. COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2806E NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE DEPT. OF ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 {l1k'WW.COLLIEROOV.NET (239) 252 -2400 FAX (239) 252 -8358 I PRIMARY CRITERIA I Whether or not the number of dock facilities and /or boat slips proposed is appropriate in relation to the waterfront length, location, upland land use and zoning of the subject property; consideration should be made of property on unbridged barrier islands, where vessels are the primary means of transportation to and from the property. ((The number should be appropriate; typical, single - family use should be no more than two slips; typical multi - family use should be one slip per dwelling unit; in the case of unbridged barrier island docks, additional slips may be appropriate)) The proposed dock will be built on a single family residential lot. Two boat lifts are being proposed and are configured in the only manner acceptable by the Florida DER 2. Whether or not the water depth at the proposed site is so shallow that a vessel of the general length, type, and draft as that described in the petitioner's application is unable to launch or moor at mean low tide (MLT). ((The petitioner's application and survey should show that the water depth is too shallow to allow launch and mooring of the vessel (s) described without an extension)) The water depths are adequate for mooring but due to the limited amount of shoreline and DER restrictions, the dock must be configured as shown in the drawing set The limited amount of shoreline recludes them from mooring two vessels parallel to the shoreline 3. Whether or not the proposed dock facility may have an adverse impact on navigation within an adjacent marked or charted navigable channel. ((The facility should not intrude into any marked or charted navigable channel thus impeding vessel traffic in the channel)) The new dock will protrude Oft. less than the existing dock, therefore will not have an adverse impact on navigation. The width of the Big Marco River at the site, measured from MHWL to MHWL, is approximately 800ft. 4. Whether or not the proposed dock facility protrudes no more than 25 percent of the width of the waterway, and whether or not a minimum of 50 percent of the waterway width between dock facilities on either side of the waterway is maintained for navigability. ((The facility should maintain the required percentages)). The proposed extension at its furthest point will protrude a distance of 54.6 -feet from the MHWL into a waterway that is 800ft. wide. The proposed docks and vessels protrude a total 6.8% of the width of the waterway, therefore leaving more than 50% of the navigable waterway open. Packet Page -52- COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT DEBT. OF ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW WWW.COLLIERGOV.NET 4/23/2013 8.A. 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252 -2400 FAX (239) 252 -8358 5. Whether or not the proposed location and design of the dock facility is such that the facility would not interfere with the use of neighboring docks. ((The facility should not interfere with the use of legally permitted neighboring docks)) The proposed docking facility will not interfere with the use of any nei- ghboring docks. Adiacent docks are designed similar to the proposed dock allowing large vessels to moor shore normal or in a boat house. Packet Page -53- 4/23/2013 8.A. } fer County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2€€00 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE DEPT. OF ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW MAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 WWVvt.COLLIERGOV.NET (239) 252 -2404 FAX (239) 252 -6358 SECONDARY 1. Whether or not there are special conditions, not involving water depth, related to the subject property or waterway, which justify the proposed dimensions and location of the proposed dock facility. ((There must be at least one special condition related to the property; these may include type of shoreline reinforcement, shoreline configuration, mangrove growth, or seagrass beds)) The DEP limits the protrusion for new docks in Aquatic Preserves to not protrude past -oft. MLWV unless it is built within the footprint of the existing dock. Following the DEP's current Guidelines would limit the upland owners to moor only one vessel and would make a difficult ingress and egress path due to the strong currents in the Big Marco River and the layout of the nei-ghboring docks. Therefore to allow safe moorina for two vessels the existing dock must be re- built, which protrudes past 20ft from the MHWVL. 2. Whether the proposed dock facility would allow reasonable, safe, access to the vessel for loading /unloading and routine maintenance, without the use of excessive deck area not directly related to these functions. ((The facility should not use excessive deck area)) The proposed deck area is 348 sq ft and allows safe access to the two boat lift areas. 3. For single- family dock facilities, whether or not the length of the vessel, or vessels in combination, described by the petitioner exceeds 50 percent of the subject property's linear waterfront footage. ((The applicable maximum percentage should be maintained)) The length of vessels exceeds 50% of the subiect property's linear waterfront footage because of the small lots on Isle of Capri. Therefore we do not meet this criteria. 4. Whether or not the proposed facility would have a major impact on the waterfront view of neighboring waterfront property owners. ((The facility should not have a major impact on the view of either property owner.)) We are proposing to rebuild the exsting dock and add two boat lifts there will be negative visual impacts to the neighboring property owners. 5. Whether or not seagrass beds are located within 200 feet of the proposed dock facility. ((If seagrass beds are present, compliance with subsection 5.03.06.1 of this code must be demonstrated)) On September 16`x', a submerged resource survey (SRS) was conducted and no seagrasses were found within the riparian rights of the property or within 200 ft. There are also no known searass beds within the Collier County Seagrass Protection Plan. The SRS is enclosed with this application for review. Packet Page -54- COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT DEPT. OF ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW WWW.COLLIERGOV.NET 4/23/2013 8.A. 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252 -2400 FAX (239) 252 -6358 6. Whether or not the proposed dock facility is subject to the manatee protection requirements of subsection 5.03.06.E.11 of this code. ((If applicable, compliance with Section 5.03.06.E.ii must be demonstrated)) The site is a single family lot on the Bice Marco River (800ft wide) and is not restricted by subsection 5.03.06E.11. Packet Page -55- _ r 4/23/2013 8.A. er� County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE DEPT. OF ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 WW'Vii.COLLIERGOV.NET (239) 252 -2400 FAX (239) 252 -6358 1 HEREBY ATTEST THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THIS APPLICATION IS TRUE AND ACCURATE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE. 1 UNDERSTAND THAT, IN ADDITION TO APPROVAL OF THIS DOCK EXTENSION, A BUILDING PERMIT IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION. I UNDERSTAND THAT IF THIS DOCK EXTENSION PETITION IS APPROVED BY THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION, AN AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNER MAY FILE AN APPEAL WITHIN 14 DAYS OF THE HEARING. IF I PROCEED WITH CONSTRUCTION DURING THIS TIME, I DO SO AT MY OWN RISK. Signature of Petitioner or Agent Packet Page -56- s COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT DEPT. OF ZONING &LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW WWW.COLLIERGOV.NET 4/23/2013 8.A. 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252 -2400 FAX (239) 252 -6358 BOAT DOCK FACILITY EXTENSION (BD) APPLICATION SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST THIS COMPLETED CHECKLIST IS TO BE SUBMITTED WITH APPLICATION PACKET IN THE EXACT ORDER LISTED BELOW W /COVER SHEETS ATTACHED TO EACH SECTION. NOTE: INCOMPLETE SUMBITTALS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED. REQUIREMENTS # OF SUBMITTED NOT COPIES REQUIRED Completed Application 6 ® ❑ Owner /Agent Affidavits, signed & notarized 1 ® ❑ Addressing Checklist 1 ® ❑ Conceptual Site Plan illustrating the following: 6 ® ❑ a. The lot and dimensions where proposed docking facility is to be located. b. All yard setbacks c. Required setbacks for the dock facility d. The total number and configuration of the proposed facilities, etc. (include all dimensions to scale). e. The water depth where the proposed dock facility is to be located and the distance to the navigate channel. (Water depth at mean low tide should be shown at approximately every five (5) feet of length for the total length of the proposed facility. f. Illustrate the land contour of the property on which the dock facility is proposed. g. The dock facility should be illustrated from an aerial view, as well as side view. Electronic copy of documents and plans on CDROM 2 ❑ Application and Review fees: $1500 Review Fee; $925 Legal Advertising Fee (estimated). Check payable to Board of County Commissioners ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS: At the completion of the review process, the applicant shall submit 16 additional copies of the application and 16 additional copies of the Conceptual Site Plan for the CCPC agenda packets. Packet Page -57- 4/23/2013 8.A. COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION/ NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 PLANN114G AND REGULATION (239) 252-2400 FAX (239) 252 -6358 vmrw.colliergov.net As the authorized agent/applicant for this petition, I attest that all of the information indicated on this checklist is included in this submittal package. I understand that failure to include all necessary submittal information may result in the delay of processing this petition. AFFIDAVIT Well, /YJarr h4hI being first duly sworn, depose and say that well am/are the owners of the property described herein and which is the subject matter of the proposed hearing; that all the answers to the questions in this application, including the disclosure of interest information; all sketches, data, and other supplementary matter attached to and made a part of this application, are honest and true to the best of our knowledge and belief Well understand that the information requested on this application must be complete and accurate and that the content of this form, whether computer generated or County printed shall not be altered. Public hearings will not be advertised until this application is deemed complete, and all required information has been submitted. As property owner Well further authorize J;r kvg �/. ]dry 'WwGll to act as our /my representative in any matters r arding this Petition. ig Lure of Property Owner Sign6ture of Property Owner -5 � F—Z Dl-- � > I+(— -- /dA,4 �L--- Typed or Printed Name of Owner Typed or Printed Name of Owner The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before methis AD th day of 20L, by Fmk jA,W,4 I t who is personally known, , to me or has produced --- ---� as identification. Packet Page -58- 4/23/2013 8.A. EXHIBIT B COLLIER COUNTY STAFF REPORT BDE- PL20110001409 Packet Page -59- 4/23/2013 8.A. AGENDA ITEM 9 -C Co er County STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION, PLANNING AND REGULATION HEARING DATE: MARCH 1, 2012 SUBJECT: BDE- PL20110001409, WAHL BOAT DOCK EXTENSION (COMPANION ITEM: VA- PL20110001410) PROPERTY OWNER/AGENT: Owner: Fred and Marci Wahl, 100 Port Dock Road Reedsport, Or 97467 REQUESTED ACTION: Agent: Joshua W. Maxwell, EIT, Turrell, Hall and Associates 3584 Exchange Avenue Naples, F134104 The petitioner is requesting a 34.6 -foot boat dock extension from the maximum permitted protrusion of 20 feet for waterways greater than 100 feet in width, which will allow construction of a boat docking facility protruding a total of 54.6 feet into a waterway that is 800 feet wide. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject site is located at 8 Pelican Street West and is further described as Lot 11, Isle of Capri Subdivision, Unit 1, Section 5, Township 52 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, Folio number 52340400004. (see location map on the following page) PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The purpose of the project is to rebuild the current 363 square foot dock facility within the existing dock footprint. The new facility has been redesigned into an "L" shaped dock with a 5.5 foot wide access walkway with a 7.5 foot wide terminal platform that serves 2 boat lifts and vessels. One of the boat lifts will be located on eastern side of the walkway with the second lift located on the southern side of the terminal platform. The proposed dock is approximately 348 square feet and protrudes,a total of 54.3 feet into a waterway that is approximately 800 feet wide MHWL (Mean High Water Line) to MHWL. There is no dredging proposed for this project. The proposed dock requires a 34.6 boat dock extension and a companion variance petition VA- PL20110001410. It is further noted that a new residence is currently being constructed on this parcel consistent with Building Permit BP- 2011090231. BD- PL2011 -1409, Page 1 of 8 Wahl Boat Dock Extension. February 17, 2011 (revised February 22, 20111 Packet Page -60- � Z �o a BD- PL2011 -1409, Page 2 of 8 Wahl Boat Dock Extension. February 17, 2011 (revised February 22, 20? Packet Page -61- I. z z 0 N CL z 0 IC H U O 4/23/2013 8.A. 4/23/2013 8.A. SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING: SUBJECT PARCEL: Single Family Residence, with a zoning designation of RSF -4 SURROUNDING: North: Pelican Street West ROW then Single Family Residence, with a zoning designation of RSF -4 East: Single Family Residence, with a zoning designation of RSF -4 South: Big Marco River West: Single Family Residence, with a zoning designation of RSF -4 Aerial photo taken from Collier County Property Appraiser website. BD- PL2011 -1409, Page 3 of 8 Wahl Boat Dock Extension. February 17, 2011 (revised February 22, 2012) Packet Page -62- 4/23/2013 8.A. ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION: Environmental Services Staff has reviewed this petition and has no objection to the granting of this request. Section 5.03.06(E)(11) (Manatee Protection) of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) is applicable to all multi -slip docking facilities with ten (10) or more slips. The proposed facility consists of two boat slips and is therefore not subject to the provisions of this section. STAFF COMMENTS: The Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny, a dock facility extension request based on the following criteria. In order for the CCPC to approve this request, it must be determined that at least four of the five primary criteria and four of the six secondary criteria have been met. Staff has reviewed this petition in accordance with Section 5.03.06 and finds the following: Primary Criteria Whether the number of dock facilities and/or boat slips proposed is appropriate in relation to the waterfront length, location, upland land use and zoning of the subject property. Consideration should be made of property on unbridged barrier islands, where vessels are the primary means of transportation to and from the property. (The number should be appropriate; typical single -family use should be no more than two slips; typical multi-family use should be one slip per dwelling unit; in the case of unbridged barrier island docks, additional slips may be appropriate.) Criterion met. The proposed dock facility consists of the reconstruction of the existing "T" shaped dock and the addition of two boat slips, which is consistent with the allowed 2 -slip provisions. 2. Whether the water depth at the proposed site is so shallow that a vessel of the general length, type and draft as that described in the petitioner's application is unable to launch or moor at mean low tide (MLT). (The petitioner's application and survey should establish that the water depth is too shallow to allow launching and mooring of the vessel(s) described without an extension.) Criterion not met. According to the petitioner's application the water depth for the dock facility are adequate, therefore this criterion is not met. 3. Whether the proposed dock facility may have an adverse impact on navigation within an adjacent marked or charted navigable channel. (The facility should not intrude into any marked or charted navigable channel thus impeding vessel traffic in the channel.) BD- PL2011 -1409, Page 4 of 8 Wahl Boat Dock Extension. February 17, 2011 (revised February 22, 20? IN Packet Page -63- 4/23/2013 8.A. Criterion met. According to the information submitted by the petitioner, the proposed facility will not adversely impact navigation due to the width of the existing waterway which is approximately 800 feet (MHW to MHW). The applicant notes that the facility has been designed so that it does not impede navigation. 4. Whether the proposed dock facility protrudes no more than 25 percent of the width of the waterway, and whether a minimum of 50 percent of the waterway width between dock facilities on either side is maintained for navigability. (The facility should maintain the required percentages.) Criterion met. Information provided in the application indicates that the proposed dock will protrude 54.6 feet into a waterway that is 800 feet in width (MHW to MHW). Therefore the dock facility will protrude approximately 6.8 percent of the waterway width which means that it meets this criterion. 5. Whether the proposed location and design of the dock facility is such that the facility would not interfere with the use of neighboring docks. (The facility should not interfere with the use of legally permitted neighboring docks.) Criterion met. According to the drawings submitted and noted by the petitioner, the proposed facility has been designed so that it does not interfere with adjacent neighboring docks or access. Secondary Criteria 1. Whether there are special conditions not involving water depth, related to the subject property or waterway, which justify the proposed dimensions and location of the proposed dock facility. (There must be at least one special condition related to the property; these may include type of shoreline reinforcement, shoreline configuration, mangrove growth, or seagrass beds.) Criterion met. The proposed dock design as noted in the application is consistent with the limitations imposed by DEP for new docks in Aquatic Preserves. Those limitations include no protrusions exceeding 4 feet past Mean Low Water (MLW) line unless the dock is built within the footprint of an existing dock, which is the case for the proposed dock facility. The application notes that the alternative, following DEP limitations, will result in a dock facility allowing the mooring of only one vessel that would include more challenging dock ingress and egress due to waterway currents occurring along the Big Marco River. Therefore the proposed facility meets at least one special condition related to the property in that it is limited by DEP provisions for new dock facilities in Aquatic Preserves as well as the waterway currents occurring along the Big Marco River which reduce the available dock design options. BD- PL2011 -1409, Page 5 of 8 Wahl Boat Dock Extension. February 17, 2011 (revised February 22, ?01'» Packet Page -64- 4/23/2013 8.A. 2. Whether the proposed dock facility would allow reasonable, safe access to the vessel for loading/unloading and routine maintenance, without the use of excessive deck area not directly related to these functions. (The facility should not use excessive deck area.) Criterion met. The petitioner indicates that the proposed dock facility includes the reconstruction of an `L" shaped dock with a 5.5 -foot wide walkway leading to a 7.5- foot wide platform allowing access and service to the two proposed vessels. Further it is noted that this deck area is consistent with the footprint of the current dock area. 3. For single- family dock facilities, whether the length of the vessel, or vessels in combination, described by the petitioner, exceeds 50 percent of the subject property's linear waterfront footage. (The applicable maximum percentage should be maintained.) Criterion not met. The subject property contains a linear waterfront that is 75 feet in length according to the application. The total length of the proposed vessels is 65 feet which is more than 50 percent of the waterfront footage. 4. Whether the proposed facility would have a major impact on the waterfront view of neighboring property owners. (The facility should not have a major impact on the view of a neighboring property owner.) Criterion met. The information provided indicates that the proposed facility will not directly change the views of adjacent parcels because the proposed dock is generally consistent with existing dock facilities in the area. As noted previously the DEP Aquatic Preserve limitations impact the design solutions possible for this facility. 5. Whether seagrass beds will be impacted by the proposed dock facility. (If seagrass beds are present, compliance with subsection 5.03.06(1) of the LDC must be demonstrated.) Criterion met. According to the information submitted by the petitioner, no seagrass beds are known to be located within 200 feet of the proposed dock facility or within this portion of the waterway. Therefore, there will be no impact to seagrass beds. 6. Whether the proposed dock facility is subject to the manatee protection requirements of subsection 5.03.06(E)(11) of this Code. (If applicable, compliance with section 5.03.06(E)(11) must be demonstrated.) Criterion not applicable. The proposed facility consists of two boat slips and is therefore not subject to the provisions of this section. BD- PL2011 -1409, Page 6 of 8 Wahl Boat Dock Extension. February 17, 2011 (revised February 22, 201 Packet Page -65- 4/23/2013 8.A. Staff analysis indicates that the request meets four of the five primary criteria. With regard to the six secondary criteria one of the criteria is found to be not applicable, the request meets four of the remaining five secondary criteria. APPEAL OF BOAT DOCK EXTENSION TO BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS: As to any boat dock extension petition upon which the CCPC takes action, an aggrieved petitioner, or adversely affected property owner, may appeal such final action to the Board of Zoning Appeals. Such appeal shall be filed with the Growth Management Division Administrator within 30 days of the action by the CCPC. In the event that the petition has been approved by the CCPC, the applicant shall be advised that he /she proceeds with construction at his/her own risk during this 30 -day period. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney Office has reviewed the staff report for BD- PL20110001409, revised on February 22, 2012. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Based on the above findings, staff recommends that the CCPC approve Petition 13D- PL20110001409 subject to the following stipulation: 1. Subject to the Collier County Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) approving companion petition VA- PL20110001410. Attachments: A. Resolution B. Application BD- PL2011 -1409, Page 7 of S Wahl Boat Dock Extension. February 17, 2011 (revised February 22, 'Packet Page -66- PREPARED BY: 1. C SAWYE PROJECT MANAGER DEP TMENT OF LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REVIEWED BY: — 44 � RAYM D V. BELLOWS, ZONING MANAGER DEPARTMENT OF LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES JLIA7D.LO Z JR., E., DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES APPROVED BY: NI K CASAL GUIDA,NfU'rY ADMINISTRATOR GROWTH MANAGEME, DIVISION BD- PL2011 -1409, Wahl Boat Dock Extension. February 17, 2011 Page 8 of 8 Packet Page -67- 4/23/2013 8.A. DATE 7_ yf -!Z DATE C3 2 - 2,2- Za /?- DATE Z-23 -/Z DATE 4/23/2013 8.A. EXHIBIT C RESOLUTION 12 -03 BDE- PL20110001409 Packet Page -68- 4/23/2013 8.A. CCPC RESOLUTION NO. 12- CTS A RESOLUTION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION RELATING TO PETITION NUMBER BDE - PL20110001409 FOR A 34.6 FOOT BOAT DOCK EXTENSION OVER THE MAXIMUM 20 FOOT LIMIT PROVIDED IN SECTION 5.03.06 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO ALLOW FOR A 54.6 FOOT BOAT DOCK FACILITY IN AN RSF -4 ZONE ON PROPERTY HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED IN COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, has conferred on all counties in Florida the power to establish, coordinate and enforce zoning and such business regulations as are necessary for the protection of the public; and WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto has adopted a Land Development Code (LDC) (Ordinance 04 -41, as amended) which establishes regulations for the zoning of particular geographic divisions of the County, among which are provisions for granting extensions for boat docks; and WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC), being duly appointed, has held a properly noticed public hearing and has considered the advisability of a 34.6 foot extension over the maximum 20 foot limit provided in LDC Section 5.03.06 to allow for a 54.6 foot boat dock facility in an RSF -4 zone for the property hereinafter described; and WHEREAS, the CCPC has found as a matter of fact that satisfactory provision and arrangement have been made concerning all applicable matters required by LDC Section 5.03.06; and WHEREAS, all interested parties have been given the opportunity to be heard by this Commission in public meeting assembled, and the Commission having considered all matters presented. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: Petition Number BDE- PL20110001409, filed on behalf of Fred and Marci Wahl by Joshua Maxwell of Turrell, Hall and Associates, Inc., with respect to the property hereinafter described as: Lot 11, Isles of Capri No. 1, according to the plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book No. 3, Page 41, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida Folio No. 52340400004 Wahl Boat Dock Ext \ BDE- PL2011 -1409 Rev. 05/07/12 1 of 3 Packet Page -69- 4/23/2013 8.A. be and the same is hereby approved for a 34.6 foot extension of a boat dock over the maximum 20 foot limit to allow for a 54.6 foot boat dock facility in the RSF -4 zoning district wherein said property is located, subject to the following conditions: 1. All docks, or mooring pilings, whichever protrude the greater into the water, regardless of length shall have reflectors and house numbers four (4) inches minimum size installed at the outermost end on both sides, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Completion. 2. At least one (1) "Manatee Area" sign must be posted in a conspicuous manner as close as possible to the furthest protrusion of the dock into the waterway, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Completion. 3. Permits or letters of exemption from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection shall be presented to Collier County prior to issuance of a building permit. 4. All prohibited exotic species, as such term may now or hereinafter be established in the LDC, must be removed from the subject property prior to the issuance of the required Certificate of Completion and the property must be maintained free from all prohibited exotic species in perpetuity. 5. Subject to the Collier County Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) approving Petition VA- PL20110001410. 6. The second boat lift on the eastern side of the dock is not approved. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution be recorded in the minutes of this Commission and filed with the County Clerk's Office. This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote. Done this l`2 day of , 2012. ATTEST: f g - jv- Nick CasaIanguid4A&ninistA4rr Growth Management Division COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA [�/l ,,� pl&g-� Mar P. Strain, Chairman Wahl Boat Dock Ext \ BDE- PL2011 -1409 Rev. 05/07/12 2 of 3 Packet Page -70- Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: Ii -- ( _ Steven T. Williams Assistant County Attorney 4/23/2013 8.A. Attachment: Exhibit A — Proposed Site Plan CP\l 1 -CPS - 01125\16 Wahl Boat Dock Ext \ BDE- PL2011 -1409 Rev. 05/07/12 3 of 3 Packet Page -71- 4/23/2013 8.A. O YN4 cc m ID oc 5, 2 kill, Egg t. ink e. e. 01� m. e,. 3N11 NVWVdW z Cp. < Uj CI_ z in LL, U) 0 0 j a. w S 0 to 0 0 0- CL (6 0 Uj W 0 M 0 Cr w 0- z AN go S. vv CA In ep Lo. . , 3N11 NVIUVdW Y C4 u 14 R_ C...' U R a Aft w W Packet Page -72- 4/23/2013 8.A. EXHIBIT D SECOND BDE APPLICATION Packet Page -73- Attachment B: 4/23/2013 8.A. lier County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE DEPT. OF ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 WWW.COLLIERGOV.NET (239) 252 -2400 FAX (239) 252 -6358 DOCK FACILITY EXTENSION OR BOATHOUSE ESTABLISHMENT PETITION APPLICATION AND SUBMITTAL INSTRUCTIONS The following information is intended to guide you through the process of a Dock Facility Extension or Boathouse Establishment Petition, from completing the application packet to the final determination by the Collier County Planning Commission. Prior to submittal of the attached Dock Facility Extension or Boathouse Establishment Petition application, you must attend a pre - application meeting to determine if, pursuant to Land Development Code Section 5.03.06, the option of a dock facility extension or boathouse establishment is available to you and to discuss the location, length /protrusion and configuration of the proposed boat dock facility. The pre - application fee is $500.00 (to be credited toward application fee upon submittal.) In order to process your request, all accompanying materials must be completed and submitted with the application (SEE ATTACHED CHECKLIST). The application fee for a Dock Facility Extension or Boathouse Establishment is currently $1500.00 plus $925.00 for required legal advertising. An additional amount for property owner notifications will be billed to the applicant prior to the hearing date. Within ten (10) days of the submission of your application, you will receive notification that your petition is being processed. Accompanying that response will be a receipt for your check and the number assigned to your petition. This petition number should be noted on all future correspondence regarding your petition. The Department of Zoning and Land Development Review will provide for legal notification of surrounding property owners within 500 feet of the subject property and newspaper advertising (required fifteen (15) days prior to the Planning Commission Hearing date). You will be notified by mail of your hearing date and will receive a copy of the Staff Report. It is recommended, but not required, that you or your agent attend the Planning Commission meeting. If you have any further questions or need assistance completing this application, contact Department of Zoning and Land Development Review at 403 -2400. Packet Page -74- Cor County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT DEPT. OF ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW WWW.COLLIERGOV.NET 4/23/2013 8.A. 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252 -2400 FAX (239) 252 -6358 DOCK FACILITY EXTENSION / BOATHOUSE PETITION THIS PETITION IS FOR (check one): ® DOCK EXTENSION ❑ BOATHOUSE PROJECT NUMBER PROJECT NAME To be completed by staff DATE PROCESSED APPLICANT INFORMATION I NAME OF APPLICANT(S) FRED AND MARCI WAHL ADDRESS 100 PORT DOCK RD_ CITY REEDSPORT STATE OR ZIP 97467 TELEPHONE # CELL # FAX # E -MAIL NAME OF AGENT JOSHUA W. MAXWELL, E.I.T_. FIRM TURRELL, HALL & ASSOCIATES ADDRESS 3584 EXCHANGE AVENUE CITY NAPLES STATE FL ZIP 34104 TELEPHONE # (239) 643 -0166 CELL #(239)250 -3242 FAX # (239) 643 -6632 E -MAIL MAXWELL TURRELL- ASSOCIATES.COM BE AWARE THAT COLLIER COUNTY HAS LOBBYIST REGULATIONS. GUIDE YOURSELF ACCORDINGLY AND ENSURE THAT YOU ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THESE REGULATIONS. Packet Page -75- 4/23/2013 8.A. - Co r Cmnty COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE DEPT. OF ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 WWW.COLLIERGOV.NET (239) 252 -2400 FAX (239) 252 -6358 PROPERTY LOCATION 1 Address of Subject Property 8 PELICAN STREET WEST Section/Township /Range 05/52/26 Property I.D.# 52340400004 Subdivision ISLE OF CAPRI Unit 1 Lot(s) 11 Block(s) Current Zoning and Land use of Subject Property RSF -4 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL I ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE I DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT 1 Narrative description of project (indicate extent of work, new dock, replacement, addition to existing facility, any other pertinent information): We are requesting additional authorization to install a side lift along the easter portion of the Previously authorized dock (BDE2011-t" ) on Isle of Capri at 8 West Pelican Naples Collier County, Florida. The site is more specifically located at Latitude 25deg 58' 36.3t- and Longitude 81 deg 43'53.97" in Section 5, Township 52 South Range 26 East The existing conditions consisted of a grandfathered 363 sg ft dock and an upland single- familv residence that has been demolished and a new home constructed in its place The natural shoreline is 75' of concrete seawall with rip rap along the entire length The waterway is approximately 800' from MHW to MHW and the existing structure protrudes 59 ft into the waterway (7.3% of the width of the waterway). Please see attached survey and existing conditions drawing for your review. The plan authorized by BDE2611.14C9 alows the existing dock to be rebuilt and a boat lift installed along the end of the terminal platform The proposed structure will protrude 55 ft from the MHWL (6.8% of the width of the waterway) 4 ft. less than the existing structure This Packet Page -76- Zoning Land Use N RSF -4 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL S N/A BIG MARCO RIVER E RSF -4 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL W RSF -4 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL I DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT 1 Narrative description of project (indicate extent of work, new dock, replacement, addition to existing facility, any other pertinent information): We are requesting additional authorization to install a side lift along the easter portion of the Previously authorized dock (BDE2011-t" ) on Isle of Capri at 8 West Pelican Naples Collier County, Florida. The site is more specifically located at Latitude 25deg 58' 36.3t- and Longitude 81 deg 43'53.97" in Section 5, Township 52 South Range 26 East The existing conditions consisted of a grandfathered 363 sg ft dock and an upland single- familv residence that has been demolished and a new home constructed in its place The natural shoreline is 75' of concrete seawall with rip rap along the entire length The waterway is approximately 800' from MHW to MHW and the existing structure protrudes 59 ft into the waterway (7.3% of the width of the waterway). Please see attached survey and existing conditions drawing for your review. The plan authorized by BDE2611.14C9 alows the existing dock to be rebuilt and a boat lift installed along the end of the terminal platform The proposed structure will protrude 55 ft from the MHWL (6.8% of the width of the waterway) 4 ft. less than the existing structure This Packet Page -76- GO er County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT DEPT. OF ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW WWW.COLLIERGOV.NET 4/23/2013 8.A. 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252 -2400 FAX (239) 252 -6358 application is for the additional boat lift along the eastern side of the access dock. Hand railings will be placed along the western side of the access platform and the northern side of the terminal platform to restrict the mooring to the two boat lifts There is no proposed dredging with this proiect No further protrusion is requested as part of this application only the alteration_ of the approved ammenities within the authorized BDE. A Variance has been granted (VA2011 • I4IO ) and is enclosed as part of this application. The following must be accompanying this application: 1) A signed, sealed survey depicting mean high water (MHW) and mean low water (MLW), and relevant water depths measured at no less than 5 -foot increments 2) A chart, drawn to scale, of the waterway at the site, depicting the waterway width, the proximity of the proposed facility to any adjacent navigable channel, the proximity of the proposed facility to docks, if any, on the adjacent lots, and the unobstructed waterway between the proposed facility and the opposite bank or any dock facility on the opposite bank 3) A site plan to scale showing dimensions and location of existing and proposed dock structures, as well as a cross section showing the facility in relation to MHW /MLW and shoreline (bank, seawall or rip -rap revetment). SITE INFORMATION Width of waterway: 800 ft.; Measurement from ❑ plat ® survey ❑ visual estimate ❑ other (specify) Total property water frontage: 75 ft. Setbacks: provided 9.3 & 29.7 ft. required 15 ft. Total protrusion of proposed facility into water: 54.6 ft. Number and length of vessels to use facility: 1.25 ft., 2.40 ft., 3. ft. List any additional dock facilities in close proximity to the subject property and indicate the total protrusion into the waterway of each: Adjacent docks one to the east is approximately 35ft into the waterway and the docks to the west protrude approximately 37ft into the waterway. For all petitions, in the case of signs located on properties 1 acres or more in size, the applicant shall be responsible for erecting the required sign(s). what is the size of the property? 0.25 ACRES Packet Page -77- 4/23/2013 8.A. Co Ter County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE DEPT. OF ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 WWW.COLLIERGOV.NET (239) 252 -2400 FAX (239) 252 -6358 Official Interpretations or Zoning Verifications: To your knowledge, has there been an official interpretation or zoning verification rendered on this property within the last year? ❑ Yes ® No If so, please provide copies. The following criteria, (pursuant to Section 5.03.06 of the Land Development Code) shall be used as a guide by staff in determining its recommendation to the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC), and by the CCPC in its decision to approve or deny a particular Dock Extension request. In order for the CCPC to approve the request, it must be determined that at least 4 of the 5 primary criteria, and at least 4 of the 6 secondary criteria, must be met. Please provide a narrative response to the listed criteria and/or questions. Attach additional pages if necessary. Packet Page -78- -1 Ga le-rY County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT DEPT. OF ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW WWW.COLLIERGOV.NET 4/23/2013 8.A. 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252 -2400 FAX (239) 252 -6358 PRIMARY CRITERIA Whether or not the number of dock facilities and /or boat slips proposed is appropriate in relation to the waterfront length, location, upland land use and zoning of the subject property; consideration should be made of property on unbridged barrier islands, where vessels are the primary means of transportation to and from the property. ((The number should be appropriate; typical, single - family use should be no more than two slips; typical multi - family use should be one slip per dwelling unit; in the case of unbridged barrier island docks, additional slips may be appropriate)) The dock will be built on a single family residential lot. A boat lift is authorized at the end of the terminal platform and an additional lift is currently proposed on the eastern side of the access dock. This configuration in the only manner acceptable by the Florida DEP. 2. Whether or not the water depth at the proposed site is so shallow that a vessel of the general length, type, and draft as that described in the petitioner's application is unable to launch or moor at mean low tide (MLT). ((The petitioner's application and survey should show that the water depth is too shallow to allow launch and mooring of the vessel (s) described without an extension)) The water depths are adequate for mooring but due to the limited_amdunt of shoreline and DEP restrictions, the dock must be configured as shown in the drawinq set. The limited_ amount of shoreline recludes them from mooring two vessels parallel to the shoreline. 3. Whether or not the proposed dock facility may have an adverse impact on navigation within an adjacent marked or charted navigable channel. ((The facility should not intrude into any marked or charted navigable channel thus impeding vessel traffic in the channel)) The revised plan protrudes no further than authorized BIDE. This dock will protrude 4ft.. less than the existing dock therefore will not have an adverse impact on navigation. The width of the Big Marco River at the site measured from MHWL to MHWL, is approximately 800ft. 4. Whether or not the proposed dock facility protrudes no more than 25 percent of the width of the waterway, and whether or not a minimum of 50. percent _of the waterway width between dock facilities on either side of the waterway is maintained for navigability. ((The facility should maintain the required percentages)). The authorized extension at its furthest point will protrude a distance of 54.6 -feet from the MHWL into a waterway that is 800ft wide The proposed docks and vessels protrude a total 6.8% of the width of the waterway therefore leaving more than 50% of the navigabie waterway open. Packet Page -79- 4/23/2013 8.A. Codex County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE DEPT. OF ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 WWW.COLLIERGOV.NET (239) 252 -2400 FAX (239) 252 -6358 5. Whether or not the proposed location and design of the dock facility is such that the facility would not interfere with the use of neighboring docks. ((The facility should not interfere with the use of legally permitted neighboring docks)) The proposed docking facility will not interfere with the use of any neighboring docks Adiacent docks are designed similar to the proposed dock allowing large vessels to moor shore normal or in a boat house. Packet Page -80- 4/23/2013 8.A. Co der cm ty COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE DEPT. OF ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NAPLES, FLORIDA 00 AX (2 9) 252 -fi358 WWW.COLLIERGOV.NET ) SECONDARY CRITERIA 1. Whether or not there are special conditions, not involving water depth, related to the subject property or waterway, which justify the proposed dimensions and location of the proposed dock facility. ((There must be at least one special condition related to the property; these may include type of shoreline reinforcement, shoreline configuration, mangrove growth, or seagrass beds)) The DEP limits the protrusion for new docks in Aquatic Preserves to not protrude past -4ft. MLW unless it is built within the footprint of the existing dock. Following the DEP's current guidelines would limit the upland owners to moor only one vessel and would make a difficult ingress and egress path due to the strong currents in the Big Marco River and the layout of the neighboring docks Therefore to allow safe mooring for two vessels the existing dock must be re- built, which protrudes past 20ft from the MHWL. 2. Whether the proposed dock facility would allow reasonable, safe, access to the vessel for loading /unloading and routine maintenance, without the use of excessive deck area not directly related to these functions. ((The facility should not use excessive deck area)) The proposed deck area is 348 sq ft and allows safe access to the two boat lift areas. 3. For single - family dock facilities, whether or not the length of the vessel, or vessels in combination, described by the petitioner exceeds 50 percent of the subject property's linear waterfront footage. ((The applicable maximum percentage should be maintained)) The length of vessels exceeds 50% of the subject property's linear waterfront footage because of the small lots on Isle of Capri. Therefore we do not meet this criteria. 4. Whether or not the proposed facility would have a major impact on the waterfront view of neighboring waterfront property owners. ((The facility should not have a major impact on the view of either property owner.)) We are proposing to rebuild the exsting dock and add two boat lifts, there will be no negative visual impacts to the neighboring property owners since boats can currently moor within the proposed boat lift areas. 5. Whether or not seagrass beds are located within 200 feet of the proposed dock facility. ((If seagrass beds are present, compliance with subsection 5.03.06.1 of this code must be demonstrated)) On September 16th a submerged resource survey (SRS) was conducted and no seagrasses were found within the riparian rights of the property or within 200 ft. The SRS is enclosed with this application for review. Packet Page -81- COM County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT DEPT. OF ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW WWW.COLLIERGOV.NET 4/23/2013 8.A. 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252 -2400 FAX (239) 252 -6358 6. Whether or not the proposed dock facility is subject to the manatee protection requirements of subsection 5.03.06.E.11 of this code. ((If applicable, compliance with Section 5.03.06.E.ii must be demonstrated)) The site is a single family lot on the Big Marco River (800ft wide) and is not restricted by subsection 5.03.06E.11. Packet Page -82- COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT DEPT, OF ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW WWW.COLLIERGOV.NET 4/23/2013 8.A. 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34904 (239) 252 -2400 FAX (239) 252 -6358 I HEREBY ATTEST THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THIS APPLICATION IS TRUE AND ACCURATE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE. I UNDERSTAND THAT, IN ADDITION TO APPROVAL OF THIS DOCK EXTENSION, A BUILDING PERMIT IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION. I UNDERSTAND THAT IF THIS DOCK EXTENSION PETITION IS APPROVED BY THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION, AN AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNER MAY FILE AN APPEAL WITHIN 14 DAYS OF THE HEARING. IF I PROCEED WITH CONSTRUCTION DURING THIS TIME, I DO SO AT MY OWN RISK. Signature of Petitioner or Agent Packet Page -83- 4/23/2013 8.A. r c&fer county COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE DEPT. OF ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 WWW.COLLIERGOV.NET (239) 252 -2400 FAX (239) 252 -6358 BOAT DOCK FACILITY EXTENSION (BD) APPLICATION SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST THIS COMPLETED CHECKLIST IS TO BE SUBMITTED WITH APPLICATION PACKET IN THE EXACT ORDER LISTED BELOW W /COVER SHEETS ATTACHED TO EACH SECTION. NOTE: INCOMPLETE SUMBITTALS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED. REQUIREMENTS # OF SUBMITTED NOT COPIES REQUIRED Completed Application 6 ® ❑ Owner /Agent Affidavits, signed & notarized 1 Addressing Checklist 1 Conceptual Site Plan illustrating the following: 6 ® E a. The lot and dimensions where proposed docking facility is to be located. b. All.yard setbacks c. Required setbacks for the dock facility d. The total number and configuration of the proposed facilities, etc. (include all dimensions to scale). e. The water depth where the proposed dock facility is to be located and the distance to the navigate channel. (Water depth at mean low tide should be shown at approximately every five (5) feet of length for the total length of the proposed facility. I. Illustrate the land contour of the property on which the dock facility is proposed. g. The dock facility should be illustrated from an aerial view, as well as side view. Electronic copy of documents and plans on CDROM 2 [] Application and Review fees: $1500 Review Fee; $925 Legal Advertising Fee (estimated). Check payable to Board of CounrZ Commissioners ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS: At the completion of the review process, the applicant shall submit 16 additional copies of the application and 16 additional copies of the Conceptual Site Plan for the CCPC agenda packets. Packet Page -84- COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION/ PLANNING AND REGULATION 4/23/2013 8.A. COMer CDtfty 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252 -2400 FAX (239) 252 -6356 www.colliergov.net As the authorized agentlapplicant for this petition, I attest that all of the information indicated on this checklist is included in this submittal package. I understand that failure to include all necessary submittal information may result in the delay of processing this petition. AFFIDAVIT Well, F «fir.. InArc; h/ahl being first duly sworn, depose and say that well am /are the owners of the property described herein and which is the subject matter of the proposed hearing; that all the answers to the questions in this application, including the disclosure of interest information, all sketches, data, and other supplementary matter attached to and made a part of this application, are honest and true to the best of our knowledge and belief. Well understand that the information requested on this application must be complete and accurate and that the content of this form, whether computer generated or County printed shall not be altered. Public hearings will not be advertised until this application is deemed complete, and all required information has been submitted. As property owner Well further authorize Tog 6 'W, Mmivell to act as our/my representative in any matters r aiding this, etifion. ig to a of Property Owner Sign Lure of Property Owner " ��� i,u)+ Ft-(-, _lam -Ig cc Typed or Printed Name of Owner Typed or Printed Name of Owner The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me_ this /,0 th day of Z 201L, by FJ J G'�S' y who is personally kno to me or has produced ---- -- as identification. State of Fleririle CYe or► (Signaf of Notary Publ c - State of Fletide) County of Oof w 16S 4vrf -n Ti �j` AC '�° (Print, Type, or Stamp Commissioned Name of Notary Public) OFFICIALSEAL LYNDA L STARKE See NOTARY PUBLIC - OREGON REV:1 COMMISSION NO. 450967 SD E- PL20110001409 Ilrt+COMISSM1%E IRESAUBUVN,A1� WANL BOAT DOCK EXTENSION DATE: 11/9/11 DUE: 11/29/11 COMPANION ITEM : VA- PL20110001410 Packet Page -85- 4/23/2013 8.A. Ow a� §Y~ ui QaZ IN fi HTd ,. LL R w- u" T s, ".� Y.`?ei °yg 1 ( V' v�. E .6� k . Z> Q " G �,j�d. ♦T � � � ¢ ID O O m P 1 S2 Z x t� :S 5i1 5 �nf HIM w c~i W LLU W m p LL. c `=na — � Qo and Qz ca IX 1 cs rnIX F� Q G w Z r W ,rY Q {. Q lei 0 LLa IL p W ; z �,o U o _ 0 C o r d Ww NM —� W o _ i• Ir, O w °m - 0 M a ?o t2 �n w c EL J �uJ- z� CC �? LL WOz r� �� LL w� �z o MZO (L 0 - ti CD Cl) �W u'� Mu' 0 m Q W '� c 5 ° GIB V (o F- N� .� ran m w ZZ Z3: cciCJ N N 5 10 o� d n > uj p W 0 Q a z Oo �W❑ F--z cnv v u 1 F"F= -Q Q� r��3 J zv v v m w 0 © s EV rn a a e- m m UZ z <g o �o N Lu -1 G oP z - ~ ww t Na � E W P11115- Wahl_ OocMCAD 1SHEETPERMR- COUNTY11115_WAHL SDEtlwg LOCATION 1120,117 Rmnl.InNFC Packet Page -86- 4/23/2013 8.A. Packet Page -87- I — Q OD �m Cn Co N CD Co c. 4/23/2013 8.A. 1. 3NII NVIMVdIU ,5�6fi =— Y U o N Q H W 0 U) z N F- Y 2� U 19'89 - P. J � � 7L, ?> U) O LU N N WU) L'S£ 3NII NVIUVdN Y � U C'i m W (D U) z En (D 0 z m 2 Co U' C) Xw0 Wz0 Packet Page -88- O z O s O t m z W J wa Ctf W fY 0 CD Q Co Q W Q Z J Z J� X W � �b�� C/J y O b atU a V O R � � z Cd w K 0. W W r't o M `¢3 9 I w N V) J w 3 WF- 7 > M 0 < z o C7 W W M o a QQ CJL Cn o ¢yon Q Z Z W i0cwi rxa d S' W ` Z Q U ozWw �LL64z Of Cq Cn CD O W �uw a�Y �ziro gas �W 8 Co ZL Tm CL Co %zw0Q -Q.}ww 20 '^1""- y'n Y U) V Q O8 W m.q@Rr N�� ww p W LL O p N i W FR n � rI O _ XW O Yw 4a0 ¢ H0 ¢D 3 j0 LL a zz K 1-' F5 ,=-: 33m 06 yigz Q YisZ 2 U www 2 l z W Z o w o a U! 1. 3NII NVIMVdIU ,5�6fi =— Y U o N Q H W 0 U) z N F- Y 2� U 19'89 - P. J � � 7L, ?> U) O LU N N WU) L'S£ 3NII NVIUVdN Y � U C'i m W (D U) z En (D 0 z m 2 Co U' C) Xw0 Wz0 Packet Page -88- O z O s O t m z W J wa Ctf W fY 0 CD Q Co Q W Q Z J Z J� X W � �b�� C/J y O b atU a V O R � � z Cd w K 0. W W r't o M `¢3 9 I 4/23/2013 8.A. Packet Page -89- 4/23/2013 8.A. 0 W Z W° N 0 W o °- w Z p 0 °° LLJ o S z W<CoLU V5_ 3:m 3 a = U o m W O r w m T. o 3 �O Nv3F —� ALL tv o g [n ¢yea ,qua: w^ N W 1 � Q Z Z v m > W Q oo � Ja 6x e d Z LL LL 0 LL W W 0 W n. O0 az9W'zV. �� I— n `> 0 Z Co auoof Ewa �E 0 J0LLW�(_. q8 w a �' mo LL Co a. Cl) d c q; � $ ; � s 4 J Q > W $ems o5 <f_aaoc� s° o Q Q W LL ¢ o rcaoo< 2Z22nOa rco�o Z W Z 0 0 0� 6i 0>5 on����� a4< �t >.. 0 0 _0 W U W Wrc�j agOO 0,-,- l- 4 F Iaaw au�3r a�� s g w W F CO � F'- LLL QZq � 2 LL M iC f-' <�t -�ii� 3Nil NVNVdN o> z N r m t Y >_ !] CO uj U Q W 0 - Q Q m O� W� LLJ a m F 0 Co Co _j O �U/ .. .. � m �O/ V T � � 0� r d � ly .W. o 0 z sr /� O IL 2 CL Q _ co ,8'Ob �_ W F- > m a a t T. V) N 90 VO' 3Nll Nt1lwdRj Y U a N U m Q O a = w W � � z � 46 >.�s -� O y' c u ------- L\l �-y W C 00 h oC7 Yl e w PA 1115 - Wahl_ DocMCAD15HEETPERMTT- COUN1Y\1115 WAHL- SDE.dw PROUNE 81200)17 RANmjmjFS Packet Page -90- 8=12 R/ Nni MNFS Packet Page -91- H v� M W W M pW �LL N w Z Z a � J � to 0 a� CO (L) 4/23/2013 8.A. o z J - ° 3t °s bra u'` j� W d70- Kd Cli f�W� 6K� j�gi KVO�ryW�= U, WO�LLO m ?�yLL oPt�k'Wg3� .ph.9p'�am 1u7il Oj o< >> O 17 Od�dZ�OO� Wg< >¢UZ=03 as yl V p 0, F °d dam Us3rF noo 2 � uoom N W Z K N N d N 0 I- o O 0 W m w 0 U i w N w rc ¢ o H 0 o u �LU w �1\ nom z mQ� o O � LL U . t- O ui (D Om zLL� s U E U Ln ` O ° >o —Z < \ \ U z�- \ C) J \\ UO cd 1 \\ \\ °v WD wg� x� Q� !I z II ® W - W LL 2 y I v �— LU LL >J I I N w Q r a. a. ¢m U m W I I 1I A�D Wao;zWo r Z 0 W 0 - F—W? mfl3r < Q O < CV o N Co IL Q 0 Z5 D_ i > U Z — V a mUjFW �oOjw p < mz W W =0- < Q� Q -- cn�¢a o zQ WW Z<WWZ� -0W� > U)< Ww 'S < d m LL F- IL ¢ I I W ¢ '� CO 8=12 R/ Nni MNFS Packet Page -91- H v� M W W M pW �LL N w Z Z a � J � to 0 a� CO (L) 4/23/2013 8.A. o z J - ° 3t °s bra u'` j� W d70- Kd Cli f�W� 6K� j�gi KVO�ryW�= U, WO�LLO m ?�yLL oPt�k'Wg3� .ph.9p'�am 1u7il Oj o< >> O 17 Od�dZ�OO� Wg< >¢UZ=03 as yl V p 0, F °d dam Us3rF noo 2 � uoom N W Z K N N d N 0 I- o O 0 W m w 0 U i w N w rc ¢ o H 0 o u �LU w �1\ nom z mQ� o O � LL U . t- O ui (D Om zLL� s U E U Ln ` O ° >o —Z < \ \ U z�- \ C) J \\ UO cd 1 \\ \\ °v WD wg� x� Q� 4/23/2013 8.A. EXHIBIT E COLLIER COUNTY STAFF REPORT BDE- PL20120001428 Packet Page -92- 4/23/2013 8.A. AGENDA ITEM S -A ADA- PL20130000004 Rev:1 FRED & MARCI WAHL - BOAT DOCK EXTENSION APPEAL ei%r ��111�tty DATE: 1/4/13 DUE: 1/18/13 STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION, PLANNING AND REGULATION HEARING DATE: DECEMBER 6, 2012 SUBJECT: BDE- PL20120001428, WAHL BOAT DOCK EXTENSION PROPERTY OWNER/AGENT: Owner: Fred and Marci Wahl, 100 Port Dock Road Reedsport, Or 97467 REQUESTED ACTION: Agent: Joshua W. Maxwell, EIT, Turrell, Hall and Associates 3584 Exchange Avenue Naples, Fl 34104 The petitioner is requesting a second boat lift that requires a 21.5 -foot boat dock extension from the maximum permitted protrusion of 20 feet for waterways greater than 100 feet in width, which will allow construction of a boat dock with two boat lifts protruding a total of 41.5 feet into a waterway that is approximately 800 feet wide. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject site is located at 8 Pelican Street West and is further described as Lot 11, Isle of Capri Subdivision, Unit 1, Section 5, Township 52 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, Folio number 52340400004. (see location map on the following page) PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The purpose of this petition is to place a second boat lift on the east side of an existing boat dock facility consistent with a riparian line setback variance, Resolution Number: 12 -71, approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals on April 24, 2012 (see attachment D). The current boat dock facility was previously approved by the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) for a single boat lift and vessel with Resolution Number: 12 -03, on March 1, 2012 with a total protrusion of 54.6 feet (see attachment Q. The second boat lift on the east side of the property was removed at the request of the CCPC at the March 1, 2012 CCPC hearing. However since the BZA approved the variance, the applicant is requesting the proposed second lift and vessel which requires a 21.5 foot extension to allow a total protrusion of 41.5 feet into a waterway that is approximately 800 feet wide Mean High Water Line (MHWL) to MHWL. The proposed boat dock extension does not propose additional decking area and entire dock facility will continue to have a total overall protrusion of 54.6 feet, meaning this proposed second boat lift and vessel will be within the previously approved overall protrusion of 54.6 feet. BD- PL2012 -1428, Page 1 of 8 Wahl Boat Dock Extension. October 30, 2012, (revised November 2, 2nl') Wn.,PmhPr '7 '7012, November 9, 2012) Packet Page -93- 4/23/2013 8.A. anx of aox � 7 Hill :L � R W 5 A� Lim• ¢ _ CD A ^ a �• z 0 a 0 n i p SGt,r � y a m M, n ♦� N a ' _ U 6 - O LL n U N wo uwa a Y « tG cc anx of aox � 7 V z z O N CL Q z Q C) 0 Co N r N O N J a _ v m Sk Z O Hill $ W 5 �e�ea N 0 a 0 n a ' Packet Page -94- V z z O N CL Q z Q C) 0 Co N r N O N J a _ v m Sk Z O 4/23/2013 8.A. SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING: SUBJECT PARCEL: Single Family Residence, with a zoning designation of RSF -4 SURROUNDING: North: Pelican Street West ROW then Single Family Residence, with a zoning designation of RSF -4 East: Single Family Residence, with a zoning designation of RSF -4 South: Big Marco River West: Single Family Residence, with a zoning designation of RSF4 Aerial photo taken from Collier County Property Appraiser website. BD- PL2012 -1428, Page 3 of 8 Wahl Boat Dock Extension. October 30, 2012, (revised November 2, 201 ?.. NnvPmhPr 7 M12, November 9, 2012) Packet Page -95- 4/23/2013 8.A. ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION: Environmental Services Staff has reviewed this petition and has no objection to the granting of this request. Section 5.03.06(E)(11) (Manatee Protection) of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) is applicable to all multi -slip docking facilities with ten (10) or more slips. The proposed facility consists of two boat slips and is therefore not subject to the provisions of this section. STAFF COMMENTS: The Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny, a dock facility extension request based on the following criteria. In order for the CCPC to approve this request, it must be determined that at least four of the five primary criteria and four of the six secondary criteria have been met. Staff has reviewed this petition in accordance with Section 5.03.06 and finds the following: Primary Criteri a 1. Whether the number of dock facilities and/or boat slips proposed is appropriate in relation to the waterfront length, location, upland land use and zoning of the subject property. Consideration should be made of property on unbridged barrier islands, where vessels are the primary means of transportation to and from the property. (The number should be appropriate; typical single - family use should be no more than two slips; typical multi- family use should be one slip per dwelling unit; in the case of unbridged barrier island —docks,-additional-slips may be-appropriate.)-. _ — Criterion met. The proposed dock facility is the addition of a second boat slip as part of the existing dock facility previously approved for a single boat slip. The proposed boat dock facility will result in a facility with two boat slips, which is consistent with the allowed 2 -slip provisions and with Resolution Number: 12 -71 which approved a reduced setback from the side riparian line for the proposed second boat lift. 2. Whether the water depth at the proposed site is so shallow that a vessel of the general length, type and draft as that described in the petitioner's application is unable to launch or moor at mean low tide (MLT). (The petitioner's application and survey should establish that the water depth is too shallow to allow launching and mooring of the vessel(s) described without an extension.) Criterion not met. According to the petitioner's application the water depth for the dock facility are adequate, therefore this criterion is not met. However this petition is limited to the addition of the second boat lift to the previously approved BDE request. BD- PL2012 -1428, Page 4 of S Wahl Boat Dock Extension. October 30, 2012, (revised November 2, 201^ "T .. L - ? "1 n November 9, 2012) Packet Page -96- 4/23/2013 8.A. 3. Whether the proposed dock facility may have an adverse impact on navigation within an adjacent marked or charted navigable channel. (The facility should not intrude into any marked or charted navigable channel thus impeding vessel traffic in the channel.) Criterion met. According to the information submitted by the petitioner, the proposed facility will not adversely impact navigation due to the width of the existing waterway which is approximately 800 feet (MHW to MHW). The applicant notes that the facility has been designed so that it does not impede navigation; additionally the proposed second boat slip is within the previously approved dock extension approved protrusion of 54.6 feet. 4. Whether the proposed dock facility protrudes no more than 25 percent of the width of the waterway, and whether a minimum of 50 percent of the waterway width between dock facilities on either side is maintained for navigability. (The facility should maintain the required percentages.) Criterion met. The current BDE provided a total protrusion of 54.6 feet into a waterway that is 800 feet in width (MHW to MHW). The proposed second boat lift and vessel protrude a total of 41.5 feet into the same waterway. Therefore this proposed dock addition will protrude approximately 5.2 percent of the waterway width which means that it meets this criterion. 5. Whether the proposed location and design of the dock facility is such that the facility would not interfere with the use of neighboring docks. (The facility should not interfere with the use of legally permitted neighboring docks.) Criterion met. According to the drawings submitted and noted by the petitioner, the proposed facility has been designed so that it does not interfere with adjacent neighboring docks or access. Secondary Criteria 1. Whether there are special conditions not involving water depth, related to the subject property or waterway, which justify the proposed dimensions and location of the proposed dock facility. (There must be at least one special condition related to the property; these may include type of shoreline reinforcement, shoreline configuration, mangrove growth, or seagrass beds.) Criterion met. As noted in the application the DEP imposes limitations for docks located within Aquatic Preserves. In this case the dock must not protrude past 4 feet Mean Low Water Line (MLWL) or remain within the foot print of the existing decking area. The current dock as well as this proposed addition utilizes decking that is within the previous foot print. The applicant also notes that due to the strong water currents in the Big Marco River alternative locations for the proposed second BD- PL2012 -1428, Page 5 of 8 Wahl Boat Dock Extension. October 30, 2012, (revised November 2, 2012, November 7, 2012, November 9, 2012) Packet Page -97- 4/23/2013 8.A. boat lift and vessel are problematic with regard to ingress and egress. Therefore the proposed facility meets at least one special condition related to the property in that it is limited by DEP provisions for new dock facilities in Aquatic Preserves, and in addition the waterway currents along the Big Marco River reduce the available dock design options to properly address ingress and egress. 2. Whether the proposed dock facility would allow reasonable, safe access to the vessel for loading/unloading and routine maintenance, without the use of excessive deck area not directly related to these functions. (The facility should not use excessive deck area.) Criterion met. The petitioner indicates that the proposed dock facility utilizes the reconstruction of an `L' shaped dock with a 5.5 -foot wide walkway leading to a 7.5- foot wide platform allowing access and service for 'two proposed vessels. Further this request does not propose any changes to the reconstructed deck area. 3. For single- family dock facilities, whether the length of the vessel, or vessels in combination, described by the petitioner, exceeds 50 percent of the subject property's linear waterfront footage. (The applicable maximum percentage should be maintained.) Criterion not met. The subject property contains a linear waterfront that is 75 feet in length according to the application. The total length of the proposed vessels is 65 feet which is more than 50 percent of the waterfront footage. 4. Whether the proposed facility would have a major impact on the waterfront - - -- view - -of -neighboring- property - owners— . (T- he- facility - should -not have a major_ impact on the view of a neighboring property owner.) Criterion met. Information provided in the application indicates that the proposed second lift and vessel will not directly change the views of adjacent parcels since a vessel is currently able to moor within the proposed boat lift area. Additionally the BZA approved (as noted above) the riparian line setback variance for the proposed boat lift that reduces the required setback from 15 feet to 9.3 feet. Staff notes that the CCPC previously objected to a proposed second boat lift in this location and requested the applicant remove it from the previous BDE. At the time of approval the request to remove the second boat lift was to ensure that the approved BDE was consistent with. the companion variance item which received a recommendation to deny from the CCPC. Given that the BZA ultimately approved the requested variance staff finds that this criterion is sufficiently met. 5. Whether seagrass beds will be impacted by the proposed dock facility. (If seagrass beds are present, compliance with subsection 5.03.060 of the LDC must be demonstrated.) BD- PL2012 -1428, Page 6 of 8 Wahl Boat Dock Extension. October 30, 2012, (revised November 2, 2012, November 7, 2012, November 9, 2012) Packet Page -98- 4/23/2013 8.A. Criterion met. According to the information submitted by the petitioner, no seagrass beds are known to be located within 200 feet of the proposed dock facility or within this portion of the waterway. Therefore, there will be no impact to seagrass beds. 6. Whether the proposed dock facility is subject to the manatee protection requirements of subsection 5.03.06(E)(I1) of this Code. (If applicable, compliance with section 5.03.06(E)(11) must be demonstrated.) Criterion not applicable. The proposed facility consists of two boat slips and is therefore not subject to the provisions of this section. Staff analysis indicates that the request meets four of the five primary criteria. With regard to the six secondary criteria one of the criteria is found to be not applicable, and the request meets four of the remaining five secondary criteria. APPEAL OF BOAT DOCK EXTENSION TO BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS: As to any boat dock extension petition upon which the CCPC takes action, an aggrieved petitioner, or adversely affected property owner, may appeal such final action to the Board of Zoning Appeals. Such appeal shall be filed with the Growth Management Division Administrator within 30 days of the action by the CCPC. In the event that the petition has been approved by the CCPC, the applicant shall be advised that he /she proceeds with construction at his/her own risk during this 30 -day period. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney Office reviewed the staff report on November 8, 2011 for BD- PL20120001428. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Based on the above findings, staff recommends that the CCPC approve Petition BD- PL20120001428. Attachments: A. Resolution B. Application C. Approved BDE, Resolution Number: 12 -03 D. Approved Riparian Line Variance Resolution Number: 12 -71 BD- PL2012 -1428, Page 7 of 8 Wahl Boat Dock Extension. October 30, 2012, (revised November 2, 2012, November 7, 2012, November 9, 2012) Packet Page -99- PREPARED BY: C L SA E PROJECT MANAGER DEPAR MENT OF ALANNING AND ZONING REVIEWED BY: /**'-� 6-, IV&--� RAYM D V. BELLOWS, ZONING MANAGER DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING MICHAEL BOSI, AICP. INTERIM DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING APPROVED BY: NICK CASALANGU A, AD6&&ISTRATOR GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION BD- PL2012 -1428, Page 8 of 8 Wahl Boat Dock Extension. October 30, 2012, (revised November 2, 2012) Packet Page -100- I b .'-5c:) . l 2 DATE ?- - Iz DATE DATE ll "t6'lz DATE 4/23/2013 8.A. 4/23/2013 8.A. EXHIBIT F VARIANCE APPLICATION Packet Page -101- 4/23/2013 8.A. ear Count COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE DEPT. OF ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 WWW.COLLIERGOV.NET (239) 252 -2400 FAX (239) 252 -6358 VARIANCE PETITION APPLICATION (VARIANCE FROM SETBACK(s) REQUIRED FOR A PARTICULAR ZONING DISTRICT) PROJECT NUMBER PROJECT NAME To be completed by staff DATE PROCESSED APPLICANT /AGENT INFORMATION NAME OF APPLICANT(S) FRED AND MARCI WAHL ADDRESS 100 PORT DOCK RD, REEDSPORT. OR 97467 TELEPHONE # CELL # FAX # E -MAIL ADDRESS: NAME OF AGENT .JOSHUA W. MAXWELL TURRELL. HALL & ASSOCIATES. INC. ADDRESS 3584 EXCHANGE AVENUE TELEPHONE # 239 - 643 -0166 CELL # FAX # 239 - 643 -6632 E -MAIL ADDRESS: MAXWELL a- TURRELL- ASSOCIATES.COM PROPERTY DESCRIPTION Legal Description of Subject Property: Isles of Capri Nol Lotl l Section /Township /Range 2J552/26 Property I.D. #: 52340400004 Subdivision: Isles of Capri Unit 1 Lot: 11 Block: Metes & Bounds Description: Acreage: 0.25 Address of Subject Property (If different from Petitioner's address): 8 Pelican Street W. Naples, FL 34113 BE AWARE THAT COLLIER COUNTY HAS LOBBYIST REGULATIONS. GUIDE YOURSELI ACCORDINGLY AND ENSURE THAT YOU ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THESE REGULATIONS. Packet Page -102- COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT DEPT. OF ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW WWW.COLLIERGOV.NET ASSOCIATIONS 4/23/2013 8.A. 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252 -2400 FAX (239) 252 -8358 Complete the following for all registered Association(s) that could be affected by this petition. Provide additional sheets if necessary. Information can be found on the Board of County Commissioner's website at http://www.colliergov.net/index.osox?poge=7-74 NAME OF HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION: ISLE OF CAPRI CIVIC ASSOCIATION MAILING ADDRESS 338 CAPRI BLVD. CITY NAPLES STATE FL ZIP 341 13 NAME OF HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION: MAILING ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP NAME OF HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION: MAILING ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP NAME OF HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION: MAILING ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP NAME OF HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION: MAILING ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP NAME OF HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION: MAILING ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE Minimum Yard Rertuirements for Subiect Property: Front: N A Corner Lot: Yes ❑ No Side: 15' Waterfront Lot: Yes ® No ❑ Rear: N/A BE ADVISED THAT SECTION 10.03.05.6.3 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIRES AN APPLICANT TO REMOVE THEIR PUBLIC HEARING SIGN (S) AFTER FINAL ACTION 15 TAKEN BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. BASED ON THE BOARD'S FINAL ACTION ON THIS ITEM, PLEASE REMOVE ALL PUBLIC HEARING ADVERTISING SIGN(S) IMMEDIATELY. Packet Page -103- Zoning Land Use N RSF -4 Single-Family Residential S N/A Biq Marco River E RSF -4 -single Family Residential W RSF -4 Single-Family Residential Minimum Yard Rertuirements for Subiect Property: Front: N A Corner Lot: Yes ❑ No Side: 15' Waterfront Lot: Yes ® No ❑ Rear: N/A BE ADVISED THAT SECTION 10.03.05.6.3 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIRES AN APPLICANT TO REMOVE THEIR PUBLIC HEARING SIGN (S) AFTER FINAL ACTION 15 TAKEN BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. BASED ON THE BOARD'S FINAL ACTION ON THIS ITEM, PLEASE REMOVE ALL PUBLIC HEARING ADVERTISING SIGN(S) IMMEDIATELY. Packet Page -103- 4/23/2013 8.A. er County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE DEPT. OF ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 WWW.COLLIERGOV.NET (239) 252 -2400 FAX (239) 252 -6358 NATURE OF PETITION Provide a detailed explanation of the request including what structures are existing and what is proposed; the amount of encroachment proposed using numbers, i.e. reduce front setback from 25' to 18'; when property owner purchased property; when existing principal structure was built (include building permit number (s) if possible); why encroachment is necessary; how existing encroachment came to be; etc. For projects authorized under LDC Section 9.04.02, provide detailed description of site alterations, including any dredging and filling. We are proposing to rebuild an existing dock on Isle of Capri. at 8 West Pelican, Naples, Collier Count Florida. The site is more specifically located at Latitude 25deg 58' 36.35" and Longitude 81 deg 43' 53.97" in Section 5, Township 52 South, Range 26 East. The existing conditions consisted of a grandfathered 363 sa ft dock and an upland single - family residence that is currently being demolished and a new home constructed in its place. The natural shoreline is 75' of concrete seawall with rip rap along the entire length. The waterway is approximately 800' from MHW to MHW and the existing structure protrudes 59 ft. into the waterway (7.3% of the width of the waterway). Please see attached survey and existing conditions drawing for Your review. The proposed plan is to rebuild the existing dock within the some footprint and add two boat lifts along the eastern side of the dock and at the end of the terminal platform. The proposed structure will protrude 55 ft from the MHWL (6.8% of the width of the waterway), 4 ft. less than the existing structure. Hand railings will be placed along the western side of the access platform and the northern side of the terminal platform to restrict the mooring to the two boat lifts There is no proposed dredging with this project We are requested a variance for the riparian setback requirements. The proposed dock design will require a 9.3ft riparian setback, 5.7 ft less than the 15ft required setback. Please note that staff and the Collier County Planning Commission shall be guided in their recommendation to the Board of zoning Appeals, and that the Board of zoning appeals shall be guided in its determination to approve or deny a variance petition by the below listed criteria (1 -8). (Please address these criteria using additional pages if necessary.) 1. Are there special conditions and circumstances existing which are peculiar to the location, size and characteristics of the land, structure, or building involved. The DEP limits the protrusion for new docks in Aquatic Preserves to not protrude past -oft. MLW unless it is built within the footprint of the existing dock. Following the DEP's current guidelines would limit the upland owners to moor only one vessel and would make a difficult ingress and egress path due to the strong currents in the Big Marco River and the layout of the neighboring docks. Therefore to allow safe mooring for two vessels the existing dock must be re- built, which protrudes past 20ft from the MHWL. 2. Are there special conditions and circumstances which do not result from the action of the applicant such as pre- existing conditions relative to the property which is the subject of the variance request. Packet Page -104- COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT DEPT. OF ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW WWW.COLLIERGOV.NET See response to question one (1) above. 4/23/2013 8.A. 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252 -2400 FAX (239) 252 -6358 3. Will a literal interpretation of the provisions of this zoning code work unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant or create practical difficulties on the applicant. Yes 4. Will the variance, if granted, be the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure and which promote standards of health, safety or welfare. Yes 5. Will granting the variance requested confer on the petitioner any special privilege that is denied by these zoning regulations to other lands, buildings, or structures in the some zoning district. Yes the minimum riparian setback will be reduced from 15ft to 9.3ft. 6. Will granting the variance be in harmony with the intent and purpose of this zoning code, and not be injurious to the neighborhood, or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. Yes. it will be harmonious with the zonina code. Due to the existina docks north of the subiect's property with similar protrusion distances there will be no iniury to the neighborhood or detrimental to public welfare. Packet Page -105- 4/23/2013 8.A. e.r County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE DEPT. OF ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 WWW.COLLIERGOV.NET (239) 252 -2400 FAX (239) 252 -6358 7. Are there natural conditions or physically induced conditions that ameliorate the goals and objectives of the regulation such as natural preserves, lakes, golf course, etc. Yes, the croiect site is located within the Rookery Bay Sanctuary aquatic preserve Due to the site being within the aquatic preserve the applicant is restricted to rebuilding the existing dock rather than reconfiaurina the dock's location to accommodate two vessels without a variance. 8. Will granting the variance be consistent with the growth management plan. Yes 9. Official Interpretations or Zoning Verifications: To your knowledge, has there been on official interpretation or zoning verification rendered on this property within the last year? ❑ Yes ® No If so, please provide copies. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENTS NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING LDC Section 10.03.05 F.3. "Any applicant requesting variance approval or parking exemption approval must provide documentation to the Zoning Department indicating that property owners within 150 feet of the subject site have been advised of the extent and nature of the variance or parking exemption requested within 30 days of receipt of a letter indicating that the application is sufficient." Applicant must submit a Property Owner Advisory Letter certifying that the property owners within 150 feet of the subject site were notified. Letter must have property owners list attached. Property owners list must be submitted at initial staff review and comment on the application and before the Public Hearing is scheduled with the Collier County Planning Commission. Packet Page -106- 4/23/2013 8.A. CoAr Coanty COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE DEPT. OF ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 WWW.COLLIERGOV.NET (239) 252 -2400 FAX (239) 252 -6358 VARIANCE PETITION (VA) APPLICATION SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST THIS COMPLETED CHECKLIST IS TO BE SUBMITTED WITH APPLICATION PACKET IN THE EXACT ORDER LISTED BELOW W /COVER SHEETS ATTACHED TO EACH SECTION. NOTE: INCOMPLETE SUMBITTALS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED. REQUIREMENTS # OF COPIES REQUIRED NOT REQUIRED Completed Application (download from website for current form) ❑ X Completed Addressing Checklist, Signed by Addressing Department 1 X ❑ Conceptual Site Plan 24" x 36" and one 8 '/2 " x 1 1" copy ❑ ® ❑ Survey of property showing the encroachment (measured in feet) 2 $100.00 ❑ Owner Agent Affidavit signed & notarized 1 ® $925.00 Deeds /Legal's 3 $500.00 ❑ Location map 1 (any over- or under - payment will be reconciled upon receipt of Invoice from Naples Daily News). ❑ Aerial photographs (taken within the previous 12 months min. scaled 1 "= 200'), showing FLUCCS Codes, Legend, and project boundary 5 ❑ $1,000.00 Electronic copy of all documents and plans (CDROM or Diskette) 2 ® ❑ Historical Survey or waiver request 1 ❑ Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and digital /electronic copy of EIS or exemption justification 3 ❑ Within 30 days after receipt of the first review comment letter, provide 1 X Property Owner Advisory Letter and Certification Project Narrative ❑ X FEES: ® Pre - application Fee $500.00 (Applications submitted 9 months or more after the date of the last pre -app meeting shall not be credited towards application fees and a new pre - application meeting will be required.) Review Fees: ® $2,000.00 Residential ❑ $5,000.00 Non - Residential ❑ $2,000.00 Sign Variance ® $100.00 Fire Review ❑ After - The -Fact Zoning /Land Use Petitions 2x the normal petition fee ® $925.00 Estimated Legal Advertising Fee - CCPC Meeting ® $500.00 Estimated Legal Advertising Fee - BCC Meeting (any over- or under - payment will be reconciled upon receipt of Invoice from Naples Daily News). ❑ $2,500.00 EIS Review ❑ $1,000.00 Listed Species Survey (If EIS is not required) OTHER REQUIREMENTS: AgentlOwner Signature Date Packet Page -107- 4/23/2013 8.A. Co*e.r Covinty COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE DEPT. OF ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 t! WW.COLLIERGOV.NET (239) 252 -2400 FAX (239) 252 -6358 OTHER REQUIREMENTS: El t-✓, /Z of �!t fgEl1ll)P6Y SBg7IIldt/4CE Date Packet Page -108- COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION"/ PLANNING AND REGULATION cotlier Comity AFFIDAVIT 2500 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 239) 252 -2400 PAX (239) 252 -6355 www.collieroov.net 4/23/2013 8.A. We//, Fred and Marci Wahl being first duty sworn, depose and say that we/l am /are the owners of the property described herein and which is the subject matter of the proposed hearing; that all the answers to the questions in this application, including the disclosure of interest information, all sketches, data, and other supplementary matter attached to and made a part of this application, are honest and true to the best of our knowledge and belief. We// understand that the information requested on this application must be complete and accurate and that the content of this form, whether computer generated or County printed shall not be altered. Public hearings will not be advertised until this application is deemed complete, and all required information has been submitted. As property owner We/l further authorize matters regarding this Petition. r of Property Owner Joshua W. Maxwell to act as our /my representative in any Sig of Property Owner Typed or Printed Name of Owner Typed or Printed Name of Owner The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this -f L� — day of , 20 f [ by pe'A k ) f` G who i , rsrso -nal o me or has produced --- -'- ---- -- identification. State of Florida Pt ^lrijp#? County of Ev4her- T'�J (� c (Signotur of Notary Public - State of 45reA 4JVt 14 2 0*16 (Print, type, or Stamp Commissioned Name of Notary Public) Packet Page -109- 8/30/2010 4/23/2013 8.A. EXHIBIT G COLLIER COUNTY STAFF REPORT PL- 20110001410 Packet Page -110- 4/23/2013 8.A. AGENDA ITEM 9 -13 Co 'er County STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION, PLANNING AND REGULATION BEARING DATE: MARCH 1, 2012 SUBJECT: PETITION VA- PL20110001410 WAHL VARIANCE COMPANION ITEM: BDE- PL20110001409 PROPERTY OWNER/AGENT: Owner: Fred and Marci Wahl 100 Port Dock Road Reedsport, OR 97467 REQUESTED ACTION: Agent: Joshua W. Maxwell, EIT Turrell, Hall and Associates 3584 Exchange Avenue Naples, FL 34104 To have the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider an application for a proposed variance from the required side yard riparian line setback of 15 feet for property with more than 60 feet of water frontage to 9.3 feet as provided for in Section 5.03.06 E.5 of the Land Development Code (LDC). The requested action (if approved) would allow a dock facility at 9.3 feet from the riparian line. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property is located at 8 Pelican Street West, Isles of Capri in Section 5, Township 52 South, Range 26 East in Collier County, Florida. (See location map on following page) PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The purpose of the project is to rebuild a grandfathered 363 square -foot dock serving two vessels within its existing footprint. The proposed dock is an "L" shaped dock that includes a 5.5 to 7.5— foot wide dock totaling 348± square feet over water. The proposed dock protrudes 54.3 feet into an 800 -foot long waterway (as measured from the mean high water line (MHWL) to M[HWL)). VA- PL20110001410 WAHL VARIANCE March 5, 2012 Packet Page -111- 4/23/2013 8.A. n ca G V Z Z 0 N IL a Z> Z 0 I- a U 0 0 0 N J a z 0 w a - R Go WY�� �� �• S" - n n � T ��� A R y• S � < ~ R - ^m R �n � +° � � � A+ AR yh• �nn R 2 m .3 4 S 91 R o z R w = R R n S S o $ S < n Q a q F ^ F n 7 y R a m LL So n ca G V Z Z 0 N IL a Z> Z 0 I- a U 0 0 0 N J a z 0 w a v z N O O PAl1 i Q W U) U- 0-1 DL o� w W Q. Z l �. .C. be, ( r e. iV s� 4/23/2013 8.A. N Y W N N � W V% Z W 17U M A Q' LL m o g ^ m AF- �� y^ N Hag 7WIlu v�'3y Z a. M. AQ�� CUp rl N 0 qqli imA C �Yam, Z �5�44� gg � m OoFgg ag w o p O YYO ~wu <,IU WiOa ~ C N Z y WZ��v=iawpaiEOr� w m z F d 0 d am °au�SF aO� w O z W m N Z, i u o \ZR V a� U W W W< > o D �w D °� o��U�/ LL c O G I W s �U. 2 m Cl 0 r, � 0 V dQ N N Y o 7 a 3NIl NVNVdN 00 w --I----,---- I. Packet Page -113- PRO LINE 12112011 RANDI.JONES W Co p g w H z C3 � o acs W� V d U 'C Cz] v 00 r E M U .V E W 4/23/2013 8.A. In addition, there are two proposed boat lifts serving two vessels: one is located on eastern side of the dock and the other on the southern side of the dock. In order to rebuild the dock in its existing footprint, the existing "T" shaped dock will be rebuilt into an "L" shaped dock to allow a boat dock lift along the eastern side of the dock. A variance is sought to allow a dock facility at 9.3 feet from the riparian line. This variance petition is a companion application to a boat dock extension petition, BDE- PL20110001409, for a proposed 34.6 -foot extension to the maximum allowed 20 foot boat dock which would (if approved) would allow a 54.6 -foot long dock. The Conceptual Site Plan entitled "Wahl Dock - Proposed Design" dated May 11, 2011, and prepared by Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc. illustrates the location of the proposed boat dock and boat lifts. (See Site Plan on previous page). According to information provided by the applicant, the neighbor to the west of the subject site has an existing, approximately 35 -foot long boat dock with a boat house. The neighbor to the east has an existing, approximately 35 -foot long boat dock. In addition, Staff has received two letters of objection (see Attachment B). SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING: SUBJECT PARCEL: Single - family residence, with a zoning designation of RSF -4 North: Pelican Street West, then a Single - family residence, with a zoning designation of RSF -4 East: Single - family residence, with a zoning designation of RSF -4 South: Big Marco River West: Single - family residence, with a zoning designation of RSF -4 VA- PL20110001410 WAHL VARIANCE March 5, 2012 Packet Page -114- 4/23/2013 8.A. ._ _ GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY: The subject property is located in the Urban Mixed Use Residential land use classification on the County's Future Land Use Map (FLUM). This land use category is designed to accommodate a variety of residential uses including single family, multi - family, duplex, mobile home and mixed -use projects. As previously noted, the subject petition seeks a variance for a single family home that is located within a single - family subdivision, which is an authorized use in this land use designation, therefore, the single family home use is consistent with the FLUM. The Growth Management Plan (GMP) does not address individual variance requests; the Plan deals with the larger issue of the actual use. ANALYSIS: Section 9.04.01 of the Land Development Code gives the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) the authority to grant Variances. The Planning Commission is advisory to the BZA and utilizes the provisions of Section 9.04.03 A. through H. (in bold font below), as general guidelines to assist in making their recommendation of approval or denial. Staff has analyzed this petition relative to these provisions and offers the following responses: VA- PL20110001410 WAHL VARIANCE March 5, 2012 Packet Page -115- 4/23/2013 8.A. a. Are there special conditions and circumstances existing, which are peculiar to the location, size and characteristics of the land, structure or building involved? Yes. According to information provided by the applicant, the subject property is located in an aquatic preserve. The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) limits the protrusion of docks to -4 feet MLW (mean low water) unless a dock is rebuilt within the former footprint of the existing dock. b. Are there special conditions and circumstances, which do not result from the action of the applicant such as pre - existing conditions relative to the property, which are the subject of the Variance request? Yes. The original "T" shaped dock was constructed by a different owner. In addition, according to information submitted by the applicant, there are strong currents in the Marco River that make it difficult to maneuver. There are also two existing dock which belong to the neighbors on either side. The neighbor to the west has a dock located only 3.5 feet away from the subject property. Therefore, to allow safe mooring, the proposed boat dock configuration was developed. C. Will a literal interpretation of the provisions of this zoning code work unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant or create practical difficulties for the applicant? Yes. The existing site conditions, mentioned above, make it difficult for the applicant to moor his vessel safely. The proposed "L" shaped dock is intended to make it easier to moor the vessels. d. Will the Variance, if granted, be the minimum Variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure and which promote standards of health, safety and welfare? Yes. The proposed dock is reasonable while still allowing for safe access for the vessel to moor within the riparian area. e. Will granting the Variance confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by these zoning regulations to other lands, buildings, or structures in the same zoning district? No. Most other neighboring properties moor two vessels. This property owner is seeking the same. f. Will granting the Variance be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this Land Development Code, and not be injurious to the neighborhood, or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare? Yes. The proposed dock design will reduce the impact on the neighboring dock to the west by relocating boat mooring to the east side of the dock. In addition, the proposed dock will have no impact to navigation in the river. VA- PL20110001410 WAHL VARIANCE March 5, 2012 Packet Page -116- 4/23/2013 8.A. g. Are there natural conditions or physically induced conditions that ameliorate the goals and objectives of the regulation such as natural preserves, lakes, golf courses, etc.? Yes. The boat dock is located within the Rookery Bay Sanctuary Aquatic Preserve. Because of this, the applicant is restricted to rebuilding the existing dock rather than reconfiguring the dock's location to accommodate two vessels without a variance. h. Will granting the Variance be consistent with the Growth Management Plan? Approval of this variance will not affect or change the requirements of the Growth Management Plan. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (EAC) RECOMMENDATION: This variance petition was not required to go before the EAC for review and approval. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney Office has reviewed the staff report VA- PL- 20110001410, revised February 29, 2012. - STW RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) forward Petition VA- PL- 20110001410, Wahl Boat Dock Variance to the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) with a recommendation of approval. VA- PL20110001410 WAHL VARIANCE March 5, 2012 Packet Page -117- 4/23/2013 8.A PREPARED BY: VI)AANA aO" I" NANCY G A H, AICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER DEPARTMENT Of LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REVIEWED BY: RAYMQND V. BELLOWS, ZONING MANAGER DEPARTMENT OF LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ,MLLLAM D. RE JR., P.E., DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES APPROVED BY: NICK CASALANOIDA, MPI�PMAOMINISTRATOR GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION MARK P. STRAIN, CHAIRMAN DATE 7- Z,1-!Z DATE b 2 _Z8 -2q, Z DATE DATE DATE Tentatively scheduled for the April 24, 2012 Board of County Commissioners Meeting Attachment: A. Resolution Attachment: B. Letters of Objection VA- PL20110001410 WAHL VARIANCE March 5, 2012 Packet Page -118- 4/23/2013 8.A. EXHIBIT H RESOLUTION 12 -71 PL- 20110001410 Packet Page -119- 4/23/2013 8.A. RESOLUTION NO. 12- 71 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, RELATING TO PETITION NUMBER VA- PL20110001410, FOR A VARIANCE FROM LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 5.03.06.E.5 TO PERMIT A REDUCED SIDE YARD (RIPARIAN) SETBACK FROM 15 FEET TO 9.3 FEET ON THE EASTERN BOUNDARY OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8 PELICAN STREET WEST, ISLES OF CAPRI IN SECTION 5, TOWNSHIP 52 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST IN COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, has conferred on all counties in Florida the power to establish, coordinate and enforce zoning and such business regulations as are necessary for the protection of the public; and WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto has adopted a Land Development Code (LDC) (Ordinance No. 2004 -41, as amended) which establishes regulations for the zoning of particular geographic divisions of the County, among which is the granting of variances; and WHEREAS, the Collier County Board of Zoning Appeals has held a public hearing after notice as in said regulations made and provided, and has considered the advisability of a variance from Section 5.03.06.E.5 of the Land Development Code to permit a reduced side yard (riparian) setback from 15 feet to 9.3 feet as shown on the attached Exhibit "A ", in the RSF -1 Zoning District for the property hereinafter described, and has found as a matter of fact that satisfactory provision and arrangement have been made concerning all applicable matters required by said regulations and in accordance with Section 9.04.00 of the Zoning Regulations of said Land Development Code for the unincorporated area of Collier County; and WHEREAS, all interested parties have been given opportunity to be heard by this Board in public meeting assembled, and the Board having considered all matters presented. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA that: Petition Number VA- PL20110001410 filed by Joshua Maxwell of Turrell, Hall and Associates, Inc. with respect to the property hereinafter described as: Lot 11, Isles of Capri No. 1, according to the plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book No. 3, Page 41, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida Folio No. 52340400004 be and the same hereby is approved for a variance to permit a reduced side yard setback from 15 feet to 9.3 feet as shown on the attached Exhibit "A ", in the RSF -1 Zoning District, wherein said property is located. Wahl Variance /VA- PL2011 -1410 Rev. 12/8/11 1 of 2 Packet Page -120- Board. 4/23/2013 8.A. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution be recorded in the minutes of this This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote this a �q h day of 1 , 2012. ATTEST: ' @ "B ? DWIGHT F.RdtK,7PLERK -)n& ( e � ep't ty Clerk Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: ,--7. Lj U- Steven T. Williams Assistant County Attorney Attachment: Exhibit A – Site Plan CP\ 1 1- CPS -01 126\9 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: C�'4 ,- FRED W. COYLE, Chai Wahl Variance NA- PL2011 -1410 Rev. 12/8/11 2 of 2 Packet Page -121- 0 f= Ui LU LL U- Co C-i W < 0 Z Ol, R 0 : Packet Page -122- 4/23/2013 8.A. U rtrt < z 0 0 ax e3 i T. -7- K u i ,-&k C -- f= Ui LU LL U- Co C-i W < 0 Z Cn F- W Le LLJ 0 rn Lq Lu w C.'! W) " 0 9) ,0 LLJ -j U- CL Ul UJ Z CO z OX -5 Co 0 < z W Z 10, C-1 2, :1 LL 0 m i: IL Li w cc 0 ;o 71V . A Z r., w V z z 10- uj z LU LU 0: D swo < 0 z I < z i 0 im L v v lu z : Packet Page -122- 4/23/2013 8.A. U rtrt < z 0 0 ax e3 i T. -7- K u i ,-&k C -- —115—w ww,mPtt" Ev AEMAL 12-1fMI' PAfiM-Kl"EZ 4/23/2013 8.A. 5g W ul LU LU LL C3 77-7-- z CL 0 Iui .T HIM I 6 . i . S MT, '14 RX, ol Sn ..... LU ........................ 't" T 0 0 4 4R`j,�MWK �k' M" 12Ai 0 vllil,NK�d-�11�-,` NIX' �T ? Z 6, 1A LU 3, 5N mi fly z 4! -A- Packet Page -123- 4/23/2013 8.A. W 5 ID �_ v �- w _ SZ � c Z i� lu • �.'tJ m A. H F- LL � V O m W > to r... N m $sir Sgt 1 r, v Q R w 0 s a s :s a'" a• w z in T R'to l3 u T Ch � y; ill _ W ,£'bE I _ [a Q C } Z a z �? Z'L CO iy'_ VO � ` CL LM r r 0 � Ili � tv Z w 0 x w CO Cr _ CO 0 LU N n c: x of w w Cf3 w CL c Y '9Nil NVItJd&8 mo Q m c UJ LL C7� =z z A,. w ` xwc wza., ~�a f 1 �N_mra'.Cf�^.S1ffT•5 4.6pt ^ €taTf':f••r W", DEn 4w, _ri tog 1211.7011 k44C4 JCM! Packet Page -124- 4/23/2013 8.A. f �n. LU Ili Q W4 ta A is s UJ _j M 0 11 ti LU 7 r fa NED FRI N U<j Z 0 0 T 1�4 -,a W� FM iou N11 N111— N N N 7 C3 tw ma Mrl U C tl Packet Page -125- 4/23/2013 8.A. YW = N h W uj 4-31 LL � c 4 t� 1ti uj z LL X0.7 (V•s 5 3 yy KZ CL 0: LU 0. Z Co �r � z in y''tr w Laua �m CL z (w �` Q 4 U) amp ❑ N UJ r U O rn I ;y r CL 10 p Cr. Q Q i UW) � m a. `. f� d' W -_ -. 90 bM 3NII Nbidddra D Q J am Lu wr' "" =rte t t �,-. i71S` ruf 4cy,- �.,:- %�DSNEY�Rf�+`RL�SIt ^Eit:=tHAMt aEx ,;..a FRG Wt� •<.y^O�I R:.'Ct 2Jt:E;. Packet Page -126- Z O H U W CO M N W LL �t C. 4 LO Ln (V r 4/23/2013 8.A. LU Cp U d wo y >0 LLJ m m z d La _O F 1i i- „G,.w. -j LL Fn t LLJ Li .,.... � m ,_ • "" r _ C) to O > _)( Z F- U O� U }- O r CL Q rJ' Q. Co t «..3- _ .... ...,.....v..._. _ u_. _ f d p J _ L1 Lo 4 —_ ;z ! Z LLI Ca Z Q i Q is WF :: ,tR= W. _ `9c' � a r IA, L�r .It tYcP Cwfi SECfi7!: 12'i :017 RAND 1?i�¢5 Packet Page -127- W !y 3 ai W y M <y ? z Q CS C 2 s ». a �C3� b �4 nw UKCc r Z to WEE - Wi�`'''a'S Zux ti ~� U _. Via° sir O '7 W O LU Cp U d wo y >0 LLJ m m z d La _O F 1i i- „G,.w. -j LL Fn t LLJ Li .,.... � m ,_ • "" r _ C) to O > _)( Z F- U O� U }- O r CL Q rJ' Q. Co t «..3- _ .... ...,.....v..._. _ u_. _ f d p J _ L1 Lo 4 —_ ;z ! Z LLI Ca Z Q i Q is WF :: ,tR= W. _ `9c' � a r IA, L�r .It tYcP Cwfi SECfi7!: 12'i :017 RAND 1?i�¢5 Packet Page -127- 4/23/2013 8.A. EXHIBIT I DEP EXEMPTION FILE NO.11- 0304778- 002 -EE66 Packet Page -128- August 10, 2011 Fred Wahl Florida Department of Environmental Protection South District Office P.O. Box 2549 Fort Myers, FL 33902 -2549 c/o Turrell, Hall & Associates 3584 Exchange Ave Naples FL 34104 Re: Collier County - ERP File No. 11- 0304778- 002 -EE66 Dear Mr. Wahl: 4/23/2013 8.A. F'; �C'fi?11 L- il1'ti)ii i.t. Ciove! nor Elcrscaicl !. cinvaid fir. Thank you for your application to rebuild existing dock in the same footprint and add two boatlifts at 8 Pelican Street W., Isle of Capri in Big Marco Pass, Class III Outstanding Florida Waters and Rookery Bay Aquatic Preserve, Section 05, Township 52 South, Range 26 East, Collier County. T his ty pe of activity may require authorization for construction and operation of the project (regulatory authorization), unless otherwise exempt by statute or rule, authorization to use state -owned submerged lands (proprietary authorization), and federal authorization for works in waters of the United States through the State Programmatic General Permit (SPGP) program (SPGP Iii -Rl). Your request has been reviewed for all three authorizations. The authorizations you have been granted are listed below. Please read each section carefully. Your project MAY NOT have qualified for all three authorizations. If your project did not qualify for one or more of the authorizations, then that specific section will advise you how to obtain it. You may NOT commence your project without all three authorizations. If you change the project from what you submitted, the authorizations(s) granted may no longer be valid at the time of commencement of the project. Please contact the Department prior to beginning your project if you wish to make any changes. REGULATORY REVIEW - VERIFIED Based on the information you sent to »G; we have determined that your project is exempt from the need for an Environmental Resource Permit (ERP). You must comply with the criteria and limiting conditions in accordance with Rule 40E4.051(3)(b), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Packet Page -129- 4/23/2013 8.A. Fred Wahl File No. 11-0304778-002 Page 2 of 6 This exemption verification is based on the information you provided the Department and the statutes and rules in effect when the information was submitted. This verification will expire after one year, and will not be valid at any other time if site conditions materially change, the project design is modified, or the statutes or rules governing the exempt activity are amended. However, the activity may still be conducted without further notification to or verification from the Department after the one -year expiration of this verification, provided: 1) the project design does not change; 2) site conditions do not materially change; and 3) there are no changes to the statutes or rules governing the exempt activity. In the event you need to re- verify the exempt status for the activity after the one -year expiration of this verification, a new application and verification fee will be required. Any substantial modifications to the project design should be submitted to the Department for review, as changes may result in a permit being required. PROPRIETARY REVIEW - GRANTED Your project occurs on state - owned, submerged land and will require authorization from the Department to use these lands. The Department has reviewed your project as described above and on the documents and/or drawings attached to your application, and as long as the work performed is located within the boundaries as described and is consistent with the terms and conditions therein, we find your project qualifies for consent to use state -owned submerged lands. As such, consider this letter to also constitute authorization to perform the activity. This consent is conditioned upon acceptance of and compliance with the attached General Consent Conditions. SPGP (FEDERAL) REVIEW - APPROVED WITH MANATEE CONDITIONS AND SEA TURTLE AND SMALLTOOTH SAWFISH CONSTRUCTION CONDITIONS Your project has been reviewed for compliance with State Programmatic General Permit (SPGP IV -R1) effective July 25, 2011. Your proposed activity as outlined on the drawings submitted with your application is in compliance with SPGP IV -R1. U.S. Army Corps of Engineer (Corps) Specific conditions apply to your project (attached). No further permitting for this activity is required by the Corps. The authority granted under SPGP IV -R1 expires five years from the date of issuance. Your project must be completed prior to this expiration date. This authorization is conditioned upon acceptance of and compliance with the attached General Conditions for Department of the Army General Permits (SPGP IV -R1) and/or Manatee Construction Conditions and Sea Turtle and Smalltooth Sawfish Construction Conditions. In the event of the transfer of ownership of the property by sale or by any other means, when the structures or work authorized by this permit are still in existence at the time the property is transferred, the terms and conditions of this permit will continue to be Packet Page -130- 4/23/2013 8.A. Fred Wahl File No. 11-0304778-002 Page 3 of 6 binding on the new owner(s) of the property. Although the construction period for works authorized by Corps permits is finite, the permit itself, with its limitation, does not expire. To validate the transfer of this permit and the associated with compliance with its terms and conditions, the attached transfer of permit request must be completed and submitted to the Department at the time of transfer of ownership. Authority for review - an agreement with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers entitled "Coordination Agreement between the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Jacksonville District) and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection State Programmatic General Permit, Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbor Act of 1899 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act." This notice constitutes final agency action and is subject to the provisions of Chapter 120, F.S., which does not apply to the SPGP IV -R1 review. NOTICE OF RIGHTS OF SUBSTANTIALLY AFFECTED PERSONS This letter acknowledges that the proposed activity is exempt from environmental resource permitting requirements under Rule 40E- 4.051(3)(b), F.A.C., and qualifies for authorization to use sovereign submerged lands pursuant to Chapters 253 and 258, F.S., and Chapters 18 -21 and 18- 20, F.A.C. This determination is final and effective on the date filed with the Clerk of the Department unless a sufficient petition for an administrative hearing is timely filed under Sections 1120.569 and 120.57, F.S., as provided below. If a sufficient petition for an administrative hearing is timely filed, thds determination automatically becomes only proposed agency action subject to the result of the administrative review process. Therefore, on the filing of a timely and sufficient petition, this action will not be final and effective until further order of the Department. A person whose substantial interests are affected by the Department's action may petition for an administrative proceeding (hearing) under Sections 120.569 and 120.57, F.S. In accordance with Rule 62- 110.106(3), F.A.C., petitions for an administrative hearing by the applicant must be filed within 21 days of receipt of this written notice. Petitions, filed by any persons other than the applicant and other than those entitled to written notice under Section 120.60(3), F.S., must be filed within 21 days of publication of the notice or within 21 days of receipt of the written notice, whichever occurs first. A petition that disputes the material facts on which the Department's action is based must contain the following information: (a) The name and address of each agency affected and each agency's file or identification number, if known; Packet Page -131- 4/23/2013 8.A. Fred Wahl File No. 11- 0304778 -002 Page 4 of 6 (b) The name, address, and telephone number of the petitioner; the name, address, and telephone number of the petitioner's representative, if any, which shall be the address for service purposes during the course of the proceeding; and an explanation of how the petitioner's substantial interests are or will be affected by the agency determination; (c) A statement of when and how the petitioner received notice of the agency decision; (d) A statement of all disputed issues of material fact. If there are none, the petition must so indicate; (e) A concise statement of the ultimate facts alleged, including the specific facts that the petitioner contends warrant reversal or modification of the agency's proposed action; (t) A statement of the specific rules or statutes that the petitioner contends require reversal or modification of the agency's proposed action, including an explanation of how the alleged facts relate to the specific rules or statutes; and (g) A statement of the relief sought by the petitioner, stating precisely the action that the petitioner wishes the agency to take with respect to the agency's proposed action. A petition that does not dispute the material facts on which the Department's action is based shall state that no such facts are in dispute and otherwise shall contain the same information as set forth above, as required by Rule 28- 106.301, F.A.C. The petition must contain the information set forth above and must be filed (received by the clerk) in the Office of General Counsel, 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 35, Tallahassee, Florida 32399 -3000. The petitioner shall mail a copy of the petition to the applicant at the applicant's address indicated above at the time of filing. The failure of any person to file a petition for an administrative hearing or pursue mediation as provided below within the appropriate time period shall constitute a waiver of those rights. Under Sections 120.569(2)(c) and (d), F.S., a petition for administrative hearing must be dismissed by the agency if the petition does not substantially comply with the above requirements or is untimely filed. Under Rule 62- 110.106(4), F.A.C., a person whose substantial interests are affected by the Department's action may also request an extension of time to file a petition for an administrative hearing. The Department may, for good cause shown, grant the request for an extension of time. Requests for extension of time must be filed with the Office of General Counsel, 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 35, Tallahassee, Florida 32399 -3000, before the applicable deadline. A timely request for extension of time shall toll the running of the time period for filing a petition until the request is acted upon. If a request is filed late, the Department may still grant it upon a motion by the requesting Packet Page -132- 4/23/2013 8.A. Fred Wahl File No. 11- 0304778 -002 Page 5 of 6 party showing that the failure to file a request for an extension of time before the deadline was the result of excusable neglect. If a timely and sufficient petition for an administrative hearing is filed, other persons whose substantial interests will be affected by the outcome of the administrative process have the right to petition to intervene in the proceeding. Intervention will be permitted only at the discretion of the presiding officer upon the filing of a motion in compliance with Rule 28- 106.205, F.A.C. Because an administrative hearing may result in the reversal or substantial modification of this action, the applicant is advised not to commence construction or other activities until the deadlines noted below for filing a petition for an administrative hearing or request for an extension of time have expired and until the exemption(s) has(have) been executed and delivered. This letter acknowledging that the proposed activity is exempt from environmental resource permitting requirements under Rule 40E- 4.051(3)(b), F.A.C., and qualifies for authorization to use sovereign submerged lands pursuant to Chapters 253 and 258, F.S., and Chapters 18 -21 and 18- 20, F.A.C., constitutes an order of the Department. Subject to the provisions of Section 120.68(7)(a), F.S., which may require a remand for an administrative hearing, the applicant has the right to seek judicial review of the order under Section 120.68, F.S., by the filing of a notice of appeal under Rule 9.110 of the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure with the Clerk of the Department in the Office of General Counsel, 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 35, Tallahassee, Florida 32399 -3000; and by filing a copy of the notice of appeal accompanied by the applicable filing fees with the appropriate district court of appeal. The notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days from the date when the order is filed with the Clerk of the Department. The applicant, or any party within the meaning of Section 373.114(1)(a) or 373.4275, F.S., may also seek appellate review of the order before the Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission under Section 373.114(1) or 373.4275, F.S. Requests for review before the Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission must be filed with the Secretary of the Commission and served on the Department within 20 days from the date when the order is filed with the Clerk of the Department. Mediation is not available. Complete copies of all documents relating to this determination of exemption are available for public inspection during normal business hours, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, at Florida Department of Environmental Protection, South District Office, 2295 Victoria Avenue, Fort Myers, FL 33901. Packet Page -133- 4/23/2013 8.A. Fred Wahl File No. 11- 0304778 -002 Page 6 of 6 Thank you for applying to the Submerged Lands and Environmental Resource Program. If you have any questions, please contact Arielle Poulos by telephone at (239) 344 -5683 or by e -mail at Arielle .Poulos @dep.state.fl.us. When referring to this project, please reference the file number listed above. Sincerely, Elizabeth Gillen Environmental Manager Submerged Lands and Environmental Resource Program EAG /mv Enclosures: 6 drawing(s) State Lands General Consent conditions General Conditions for Department of the Army General Permits (SPGP IV -R1) Standard Manatee Construction Conditions Sea Turtle and Small-tooth Sawfish Construction Conditions cc: Office of Coastal and Aquatic Managed Areas, Rookery Bay Aquatic Preserve Fred Wahl CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned duly designated deputy clerk hereby certifies that this document, including all copies, was mailed before the close of business on, 5 ; ' 1 D 20�, to the above listed person(s). FILING AND ACKNOWLEDGMENT FILED, on this date, pursuant to Section 120.520, F.S., with the designated Department clerk, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged. Clerk Date Packet Page -134- 4/23/2013 8.A. GENERAL CONDITIONS FOR DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY GENERAL PERMITS (SPGP IV -R1) General Conditions: i) The time limit for completing the work authorized ends five years from the date of issuance. 2) You must maintain the activity authorized by this permit in good condition and in conformance with the terms and conditions of this permit. You are not relieved of this requirement if you abandon the permitted activity, although you may make a good faith transfer to a third party in compliance with General Condition 4 below. Should you wish to cease to maintain the authorized activity or should you desire to abandon it without a good faith transfer, you must obtain a modification of this permit from this office, which may require restoration of the area. 3) if you discover any previously unknown historic or archeological remains while accomplishing the activity authorized by this permit, you must immediately notify this office of what you have found. We will initiate the Federal and State coordination required to determine if the remains warrant a recovery effort or if the site is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. 4) If you sell the property associated with this permit, you must obtain the signature and mailing address of the new owner in the space provided below and forward a copy of the permit to this office to validate the transfer of this authorization. 5) If a conditioned water quality certification has been issued for your project, you must comply with the conditions specified in the certification as special conditions to this permit. 6) You must allow representatives from this office to inspect the authorized activity at any time deemed necessary to ensure that it is being or has been accomplished in accordance with the tenns and conditions of your permit. Further information: 1) Limits of this authorization: a) This permit does not obviate the need to obtain other Federal, State or local authorizations required by law. b) This permit does not grant any property rights or exclusive privileges. c) This permit does not authorize any injury to the property or rights of others. d) This permit does not authorize interference with any existing or proposed Federal projects. 2) Limits of Federal Liability. In issuing this permit, the Federal Government does not assume any liability for the following: a) Damages to the permitted project or uses thereof as a result of other permitted or unpermitted activities or from naturaA causes. b) Damages to the permitted project or uses thereof as a result of current or future activities undertaken by or on behalf of the United States in the public interest. c) Damages to persons, property, or to other permitted or unpermitted activities or structures caused by the activity authorized by this permit. Packet Page -135- 4/23/2013 8.A. GENERAL CONDITIONS FOR DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY GENERAL PERMITS (SPGP IV -R1) d) Design or construction deficiencies associated with the permitted work. e) Damage claims associated with any future modification, suspension, or revocation of this permit. 3) Reliance on Applicant's Data: The determination of this office that issuance of this permit is not contrary to the public interest was made in reliance on the information you provided. 4) Reevaluation of Permit Decision: This office may reevaluate its decision on this permit at any time the circumstances warrant. Circumstances that could require a reevaluation include, but are not limited to, the following: a) You fail to comply with the terms and conditions of this permit. b) The information provided by you in support of your permit application proves to have been false, incomplete, or inaccurate (see o" above). c) Significant new information surfaces which this office did not consider in reaching the original public interest decision. 5) Such a reevaluation may result in a determination that it is appropriate to use the suspension, modification, and revocation procedures contained in 33 CFR 325.7 or enforcement procedures such as those contained in 33 CFR 326.4 and 326.5. The referenced enforcement procedures provide for the issuance of an administrative order requiring you comply with the terms and conditions of your permit and for the initiation of legal action where appropriate. You will be required to pay for any corrective measures ordered by this office, and if you fail to comply with such directive, this office may in certain situations (such as those specified in 33 CIXR 209.170) accomplish the corrective measures by contract or other-Arise and bill you for the cost. 6) When the structures or work authorized by this permit are still in existence at the time the property is transferred, the terms and conditions of this permit will continue to be binding on the new owner(s) of the property. To validate the transfer of this permit and the associated liabilities associated with compliance with its terms and conditions, have the transferee sign and date below and mail to Department of Environmental Protection, South District Office, P.O. Box 2549, Fort Myers, FL 33902 -2549, TRANSFEREE- Signature Date NAME - Printed ADDRESS Packet Page -136- 4/23/2013 8.A. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION SUBMERGED LANDS AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES PROGRAM GENERAL CONSENT CONDITIONS FOR AUTHORIZATIONS Project No: 1.1 - 0:04778 -002 Rule 18- 21.004(7), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.), provides that all authorizations granted by rule or in writing under Rule 18- 21.005, F.A.C., except those for aquaculture activities and geophysical testing, shall be subject to the general conditions as set forth in paragraphs (a) through (i) below. The general conditions shall be part of all authorizations under this chapter, shall be binding upon the grantee, and shall be enforceable under Chapter 253 or Chapter 258, Part II, Florida Statutes, (F.S.). (a) Authorizations are valid only for the specified activity or use. Any unauthorized deviation from the specified activity or use the conditions for undertaking that activity or use shall constitute a violation. Violation of the authorization shall result in suspension or revocation of the grantee's use of the sovereignty submerged land unless cured to the satisfaction of the Board. (b) Authorizations convey no title to sovereignty submerged land or water column, nor do they constitute recognition or acknowledgment of any other person's title to such land or water. (c) Authorizations may be modified, suspended or revoked in accordance with their terms or the remedies provided in Sections 253.04 and 258.46, F.S., or Chapter 18 -14, F.A.C. (d) Structures or activities shall be constructed and used to avoid or minimize adverse impacts to sovereignty submerged lands and resources. (e) Construction, use, or operation of the structure or activity shall not adversely affect any species which is endangered, threatened or of special concern, as listed in Rules 68A- 27.003, 68A- 27.004, and 68A - 27.005, F.A.C. (f) Structures or activities shall not unreasonably interfere with riparian rights. When a court of competent jurisdiction determines that riparian rights have been unlawfully affected, the structure or activity shall be modified in accordance with the court's decision. (g) Structures or activities shall not create a navigational hazard. (h) Structures shall be maintained in a functional condition and shall be repaired or removed if they become dilapidated to such an extent that they are no longer functional. This shall not be construed to prohibit the repair or replacement subject to the provisions of Rule 18- 21.005, F.A.C., within one year, of a structure damaged in a discrete event such as a storm, flood, accident, or fire. (i) Structures or activities shall be constructed, operated, and maintained solely for water dependent purposes, or for non -water dependent activities authorized under Rule 18- 21.004(1)(g), F.A.C., or any other applicable law. Packet Page -137- 4/23/2013 8.A. STANDARD MANATEE CONDITIONS FOR IN -WATER WORK 2011 The permittee shall comply with the following conditions intended to protect manatees from direct project effects: a. All personnel associated with the project shall be instructed about the presence of manatees and manatee speed zones, and the need to avoid collisions with and injury to manatees. The permittee shall advise all construction personnel that there are civil and criminal penalties for harming, harassing, or killing manatees which are protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the Florida Manatee Sanctuary Act. b. All vessels associated with the construction project shall operate at "Idle Speed/ No Wake' at all times while in the immediate area and while in water where the draft of the vessel provides less than a four -foot clearance from the bottom. All vessels will follow routes of deep water whenever possible. C. Siltation or turbidity barriers shall be made of material in which manatees cannot become entangled, shall be properly secured, and shall be regularly monitored to avoid manatee entanglement or entrapment. Barriers must not impede manatee movement. d. All on -site project personnel are responsible for observing water - related activities for the presence of manatee(s). All in -water operations, including vessels, must be shutdown if a manatee(s) comes within 50 feet of the operation. Activities will not resume until the manatee(s) has moved beyond the 50 -foot radius of the project operation, or until 30 minutes elapses if the manatee(s) has not reappeared within 50 feet of the operation. Animals must not be herded away or harassed into leaving. e. Any collision with or injury to a manatee shall be reported immediately to the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) Hotline at 1- 888 -404 -3922. Collision and /or injury should also be reported to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Jacksonville (1- 904 -731 -3336) for north Florida or Vero Beach (1 -772- 562 -3909) for south Florida and emailed to FWC at Imperiled5peciesC @ mvf7WC.com. f. Temporary signs concerning manatees shall be posted prior to and during all in- water project activities. All signs are to be removed by the permittee upon completion of the project. Awareness signs that have already been approved for this use by the FWC must be used. One sign which reads Caution: Boaters must be posted. A second sign measuring at least 81/2" by 11" explaining the requirements for "Idle Speed /No Wake" and the shut down of in -water operations must be posted in a location prominently visible to all personnel engaged in water - related activities. These signs can be viewed at httn: f m rfwc.com WILDL1FEHABITATS ma: ateg, n vendors.htrn. Questions concerning these signs can be forwarded to the email address listed above. Packet Page -138- 4/23/2013 8.A. SEA TURTLE AND SMALLTOOTH SAWFISH CONSTRUCTION CONDITIONS The permittee shall comply with the following protected species construction conditions: a. The permittee shall instruct all personnel associated with the project of the potential presence of these species and the need to avoid collisions with sea turtles and smalltooth sawfish. All construction personnel are responsible for observing water - related activities for the presence of these species. b. The permittee shall advise all construction personnel that there are civil and criminal penalties for harming, harassing, or killing sea turtles or smalltooth sawfish, which are protected under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. Siltation barriers shall be made of material in which a sea turtle or smalltooth sawfish cannot become entangled, be properly secured, and be regularly monitored to avoid protected species entrapment. Barriers may not block sea turtle or smalltooth sawfish entry to or exit from designated critical habitat without prior agreement from the National Marine Fisheries Service's Protected Resources Division, St. Petersburg, Florida. d. All vessels associated with the construction project shall operate at "no wake/ idle" speeds at all times while in the construction area and while in water depths where the draft of the vessel provides less than a four -foot clearance from the bottom. All vessels will preferentially follow deep -water routes (e.g., marked char- -zels) whenever possible. e. If a sea turtle or smalltooth sawfish is seen within 100 yards of the active daily construction/ dredging operation or vessel movement, all appropriate precautions shall be implemented to ensure its protection. These precautions shall include cessation of operation of any moving equipment closer than 50 feet of a sea turtle or smalltooth sawfish. Operation of any mechanical construction equipment shall cease immediately if a sea turtle or small tooth sawfish is seen within a 50 -foot radius of the equipment. Activities may not resume until the protected species has departed the project area of its own volition. f. Any collision with and/or injury to a sea turtle or smalltooth sawfish shall be reported immediately to the National Marine Fisheries Service's Protected Resources Division (727 -824 -5312) and the local authorized sea turtle stranding/ rescue organization. Any special construction conditions, required of your specific project, outside these general conditions, if applicable, will be addressed in the primary consultation. Packet Page -139- 4/23/2013 8.A. m 9 to 0 C 2 V m 1i > �1l0-11t1J m .A. TA v x �o �a 0 y . AA Oz O r G w tr1 O� D�� ( p a Z o <"' o-q °tin m O VJ a C'y • Rp I C m m imp a O m Z Y (� o N dam° � (� w r nom' �Z ZZ m O0 fD N 1 (n A Yn 0 v� u� rn v m 1 2 _ ZD m 3 O w° mm oy C m O w� -n p And v� oz o>;o a % i ;u .0 OZM C �f1 0 z O� � � ;u Z Cl T iz �z -mi tl CIE 0 0� r 0 ` m —_D! - m 0 i a m Z Cl). -4 Z oA o D� ;DQ - OD 0w za' a w -n v m ' mm� - (n a k' 'o7 yT lt`• i •1 a . R a , m �t• �' r 1 'f . tiN;ryj � �u� Packet Page -140- 4/23/2013 8.A. CA i I ..3 MO z. Z1. W`, <*+ °• 7 �,' k r "� t , ({' a"z �*'F fs-�a *I- J` �Yl a k 7 ° 'rfr y Ns ' �O 9 ,n., Was " 1w.it -'t° �p. `•t 't, -.r. *'y *.n" qty r'. yt�n f 4 a sR th'tsat ss r i�� b _ p aTs 8� .a d ? '� 74 r4ark?sM Ca '','r.. a�-R�� iRx d y r l r"'�t © "� %V a+ —� 5¢. � F �S� •�»'� � � YI ] t � x i'�i ��,f � fit, - 3t " Y e L§r � ti � v r t x +� � � � 7 (� /Z� � � rn X O ?r {s' •v'SiC�GA3�:�� era y cox" f ° • = aw'FA r7 Q k frak P O 0 g 41 6 �xtt 4`[1 4 }S D � m - D r s �, �� Fh k§x ipsru 4yy 3'`�S Ul MIN . . . ... . . 0 7'.� T r +' °.ski �v 0, i a D o��a �j m -nl o o o eel °o�v 7co�mmm F � �, �f ) IV 0 K ogwz�33$$n n s . ii�ajj) %r :3 1 y 4. Zlv- wit APE pyiy�Y� <aS {pOTmOm p.FgqAk �WO4.Am Ar D ao Z mn �ASr�m. 0 ci'�x^ 0 17A vx °JS zo�v ZDZ Z [S7 SE�.F. �r� � �� y it; 0 1. N x - w SEMI N x� •,'J N d °" �.t,a3�"+ ©J�i?,Ss' ! 'r6. 5 ;a m r d y O "�U rx ?4 r 7 �o Ls�iv�J Q 3� m n v C m n r r }`` • rri °z, '� CO ZEE" m n c m -� s fflu . W W t Packet Page -141- 4/23/2013 8.A. 1-Y 0 z m 0 m x G) (n 99 7; Co z tg 0 G) , D1 E > z RIPARIAN LINE 35.1' T W M m M m X 0 Co F- C o > zn- Co -1 z PD >* z G) z G) G) 0 v 0 ;u G) z 58,6' X 0 xm fn Z > 0 0 A -.q 7.8' Z z G) Co _0 0 ;o 0 Z F— 7.2' z "0 C m 4�.5' > ;u m %p m Cp 00 Z RIPARIAN LINE 57.1' Lp 343 0 W 0 vi-A Z *,9,09! q, , v ■ $m 1110S5 Gl ozm I �z V A.;! ->Cfi;-',AN� m 0 m X . = '�' o m 0 — — m -.�M3 > C) Co gig m a zwj 0 z 8 PA 5 9 r,�% OUT 2 m 0 G) t �rn X Z6) z OM 41 m 0 it 6 z G) Co m rn Packet Page -142- 4/23/2013 8.A. �t C' o 3K 'f 3 m - L, r, RIPARIAt' 0A > � rcOn UQ n 7= P TS Ir t Yip ��0 , j M1 t s Zt � �y xk ./ ^` st n a a u� �t«�a is � C'► .x� x�°� +%+�1,�, � � ��� J r a . 'hDta S t� k� 5rty Y'C� k t � C �k - y m •�, VW Ch M S b o -f f f d� �' .rv... a .i - a F :r+ ^ •� "� 1091.4 wig a r 0 p /��Q' �IP!�'\R��1����IYCr.�� r d � ° t � 3' c � %'ra � • {�r �i ?� <br � �y kS�7 y +: -r �z t 5"� y. 4 s ? � a'l ii -. i Y „�.y^,1 s� •. x J' � s'�" n 1 Z O � N ° . 00000� 0000�� 1111 cF jo p 1-t0 y0y9 A in 99Z;F FF-Ctg� C Avg �"�1T• v� m my T,y A m % P �A 0x'01 10 1xQ mom �1 bNyyyOg7b�111 Zm r_ C t'. c 8�n .. 08 r.Am wm N £�m XJ kSKc ho%p ZZO may. x,,Jy , Imm Y y m0 sf o 9 2 { V7 �i Fi O OG Om _m D vz� d Wm� Packet Page -143- a O 0 hl n .� hmi: F. O i£ n it 3 � co m qH o w w H � � 0 fn C P �j CD Vi w � ~ s 7 C s 40.8' !I .s 0m ul io$$ �O 0 I .... ..y Z n 2 O O m q ^ J Pg %O A�p�� -p mi—Okim 0 C/) m O zgm�3gT © p p X C 3�OD<a s 7 C s 40.8' !I 2O 0m ul io$$ �O y°m ... .... ..y Z n 2 O Da < m q OOO ��Bz� Pg %O A�p�� -p mi—Okim 0 zgm�3gT p o 3�OD<a °''i °O ga. m'p* O�AN� ;Cjy 3yADTAAT O PAC .'Am -30aA z 3A^y9 U °im� vv.J mmoo zz o A D K zj Z z ° m N m RIPARIAN LINE T .6, i `/ N z - mX �O �a :n- 0 �s -� m 'A 0 rn 12.5' N � 's p 54.6' RIPARIAN LINE CAL) C s 40.8' XT 2O 0m Z m 7 ��O�C)W, �O i' m .aT r � �O Co tP ad C� 'v U1 it 1p t° 10.5J 12' 17.5' p 54.6' RIPARIAN LINE CAL) Q ai Z m 7 �O r � �O Co -\ m 0 n � Om o C,) r ra Zzm (r m yhZ�7 A�� hJ U m Vi y C A II LM o Packet Page -144- 4/23/2013 8.A. C0 D M ;U:� m d \ \ \\ A a R, bJ W Q � • / \ / \\ U L (AM 4/23/2013 8.A. lie II D -00 > $ m D Z p r� r Z �? o z G a N 0 0 / s n \\ \ -I Z D �� II r 6 oc g Nom - �s'� -n -n rn o��i� 0 � � Irr . m 3z �° ( i M> C� DK� i -I m =m 'I �v CO X Op _ 0 N r 0 Tj M A W V m 7 ... .... .. .m O I �� m O N o��1 3$ g �CA <� !p o^ D�A oT mO�m i = go �a i I N � o DJw y zy 3 o0 CD I i 2 m� gyp, q;m 0m w '0 mxy �9 Rigs D D a SoV Z z 0 in > 0�9 rn° h .0 . om 1 m mm f o 1 i. W q r mm Z o O J % m 1 N Packet Page -145- 4/23/2013 8.A. EXHIBIT J EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY Packet Page -146- 4/23/2013 8.A. EXHIBIT K AERIAL EXHIBIT Packet Page -147- A 10) 4 /') r1-1 '2 4 A 4/23/2013 8.A. RESOLUTION NO. 12- 71 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, RELATING TO PETITION NUMBER VA- PL20110001410, FOR A VARIANCE FROM LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 5.03.06.E.5 TO PERMIT A REDUCED SIDE YARD (RIPARIAN) SETBACK FROM 15 FEET TO 9.3 FEET ON THE EASTERN BOUNDARY OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8 PELICAN STREET WEST, ISLES OF CAPRI IN SECTION 5, TOWNSHIP 52 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST IN COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, has conferred on all counties in Florida the power to establish, coordinate and enforce zoning and such business regulations as are necessary for the protection of the public; and WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto has adopted a Land Development Code (LDC) (Ordinance No. 2004 -41, as amended) which establishes regulations for the zoning of particular geographic divisions of the County, among which is the granting of variances; and WHEREAS, the Collier County Board of Zoning Appeals has held a public hearing after notice as in said regulations made and provided, and has considered the advisability of a variance from Section 5.03.06.E.5 of the Land Development Code to permit a reduced side yard (riparian) setback from 15 feet to 9.3 feet as shown on the attached Exhibit "A ", in the RSF -1 Zoning District for the property hereinafter described, and has found as a matter of fact that satisfactory provision and arrangement have been made concerning all applicable matters required by said regulations and in accordance with Section 9.04.00 of the Zoning Regulations of said Land Development Code for the unincorporated area of Collier County; and WHEREAS, all interested parties have been given opportunity to be heard by this Board in public meeting assembled, and the Board having considered all matters presented. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA that: Petition Number VA- PL20110001410 filed by Joshua Maxwell of Turrell, Hall and Associates, Inc. with respect to the property hereinafter described as: Lot 11, Isles of Capri No. 1, according to the plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book No. 3, Page 41, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida Folio No. 52340400004 be and the same hereby is approved for a variance to permit a reduced side yard setback from 15 feet to 9.3 feet as shown on the attached Exhibit "A ", in the RSF -1 Zoning District, wherein said property is located. Wahl Variance NA- PL2011 -1410 Rev. 12/8/11 1 of 2 Packet Page -149- 4/23/2013 8.A. Board. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution be recorded in the minutes of this This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote this oQ qA day of 440fil_'2012. ATTEST: } DWIGHT;2.131M&,,gLERK Ateuty Clerk Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: k-7. (,j U-_ Steven T. Williams Assistant County Attorney Attachment: Exhibit A — Site Plan CP\ 11- CPS - 01126 \9 Wahl Variance NA- PL2011 -1410 Rev. 12/8/11 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By- FRED W. COY Chair 2of2 Packet Page -150- 4y23/2013 8.A. zo VO TV ZM c2 Cn Co Fp ma — — ---' ---'------' Packet Page -151- 4/23/2013 8.A. Packet Page -152- CD �m -x G) Cr 'Z _o Q ° VI 0 v; 1� n Q L' C 4� z T 4� re z'- L± - N m " s hi hr i+ 1+ O D n �7 m 4/23/2013 8.A. �l t a a zz� R q � n W1.9-1116t 311!113 —33u Y.w 5- -mulls-1NYC 3a•13�H>.O`!7'! "'o tnenil t: �•: 0m_X c n U-) Cq Z �mz 0 G) Z rn -i w D M �! n� RIPARIAN LINE 35.1' F X �., � m ���rrrrtt x i z Q m o �'.�-.. �_i N! 7.8' j N Cn m m C 72` ao D m - RIPARIAN LINE bi . . . . . . . . . . Oz pOp C•MCq,Z S- na y�mTSOO� -yx i�C�sz -i, % oa�z ;� ?1bv crn Fi_ s- =o i a A n� om yam. O Y M ACC1 � m x w U �-- ----- 41.5. -- f -- Omx - _ U7 ^ Co z 0 0 Z G� Packet Page -153- W to C0 om �J 1 4/23/2013 8.A. Packet Page -154- 4/23/2013 8.A. s3:�or crcru i:on:.z+ �vrtoea •+aaao ,Nxa ei��- e:.aas_nwae�i:�a+r�'u'�- rr -5<<�, m m n 0 RIPARIAN LINE nH m O a F - r m _ 40.6' CD-- J12.5' 4 r0 Om o Z fn mp —� C m O a rn 4}. Cn . RIPARIAN SINE' z _0 m 0 n v Z fie- ..oat €o y ''psimo Ull S: v r m` o Nm.. Z m m 61M e Packet Page -155- m Packet Page -156- 4/23/2013 8.A. tom-lat holzn M > 0 > -0 0 MIJ, > Z I F G) Ul L z M. r-11 '� 0 7- z > 0 or < CO CA C;) 0 G) m r o 4 Cl) > z C M 4 0 < m > > 81 1 al 1 MM 0 my 4: x — i A. $ Z z ;8 'n tv wm m Packet Page -156- 4/23/2013 8.A. tom-lat holzn Lq x 0 0 m C3 C Cn F CJt U) m M > 0 > -0 0 MIJ, > Z I F G) Ul L z M. r-11 '� 0 Lq x 0 0 m C3 C Cn F CJt U) m 0 0 > -0 0 E -n M Ul M. Lq x 0 0 m C3 C Cn F CJt U) m 4/23/2013 8.A. CCPC RESOLUTION NO. 12 -03 A RESOLUTION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION RELATING TO PETITION NUMBER BDE - PL20110001409 FOR A 34.6 FOOT BOAT DOCK EXTENSION OVER THE MAXIMUM 20 FOOT LIMIT PROVIDED IN SECTION 5.03.06 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO ALLOW FOR A 54.6 FOOT BOAT DOCK FACILITY IN AN RSF -4 ZONE ON PROPERTY HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED IN COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, has conferred on all counties in Florida the power to establish, coordinate and enforce zoning and such business regulations as are necessary for the protection of the public; and WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto has adopted a Land Development Code (LDC) (Ordinance 04 -41, as amended) which establishes regulations for the zoning of particular geographic divisions of the County; among which are provisions for granting extensions for boat docks; and WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC), being duly appointed, has held a properly noticed public hearing and has considered the advisability of a 34.6 foot extension over the maximum 20 foot limit provided in LDC Section 5.03.06 to allow for a 54.6 foot boat dock facility in an RSF -4 zone for the property hereinafter described; and WHEREAS, the CCPC has found as a matter of fact that satisfactory provision and arrangement have been made concerning all applicable matters required by LDC Section 5.03.06; and WHEREAS, all interested parties have been given the opportunity to be heard by this Commission in public meeting assembled, and the Commission having considered all matters presented. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: Petition Number BDE- PL20110001409, filed on behalf of Fred and Marci Wahl by Joshua Maxwell of Turrell, Hall and Associates, Inc., with respect to the property hereinafter described as: Lot 11, Isles of Capri No. 1, according to the plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book No. 3, Page 41', of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida Folio No. 52340400004 Wahl Boat Dock Ext \ BDE- PL2011 -1409 Rev. 05/07/12 1 of 3 Packet Page -157- 4/23/2013 8.A. be and the same is hereby approved for a 34.6 foot extension of a boat dock over the maximum 20 foot limit to allow for a 54.6 foot boat dock facility in the RSF -4 zoning district wherein said property is located, subject to the following conditions: 1. All docks, or mooring pilings, whichever protrude the greater into the water, regardless of length shall have reflectors and house numbers four (4) inches minimum size installed at the outermost end on both sides, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Completion. 2. At least one (1) "Manatee Area" sign must be posted in a conspicuous manner as close as possible to the furthest protrusion of the dock into the waterway, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Completion. 3. Permits or letters of exemption from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection shall be presented to Collier County prior to issuance of a building permit. 4. All prohibited exotic species, as such term may now or hereinafter be established in the LDC, must be removed from the subject property prior to the issuance of the required Certificate of Completion and the property must be maintained free from all prohibited exotic species in perpetuity. 5. Subject to the Collier County Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) approving Petition VA- PL20110001410. 6. The second boat lift on the eastern side of the dock is not approved. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution be recorded in the minutes of this Commission and filed with the County Clerk's Office. This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote. Done this 15th day of March, 2012. ATTEST: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Nick Casalanguida, 'nistrator Mark . Strain, Chairman Growth Management Division Wahl Boat Dock Ext \ BDE- PL2011 -1409 Rev. 05/07/12 2 of 3 Packet Page -158- 4/23/2013 8.A. Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: Steven T. Williams Assistant County Attorney Attachment: Exhibit A — Proposed Site Plan CP\ 11- CPS - 01125 \16 Wahl Boat Dock Ext \ BDE- PL2011 -1409 Rev. 05/07/12 3 of Packet Page -159- 4/23/2013 8.A. W N ws� 3Cp � z om U. g � a wZZ ~�a �� a v's':iN� m 0 O < LL Q • I�� i z iS m����. ���;� � d � 0 0 MON. �iO oF� ;��aLL e+ww�''°��igfi� gli<«tl daa �. e. Le �Nll N�112ib'dl�! e� a> 111 CL z 71 cz�o CL. m �` cWi� d CCo J 0 tV u7 U 0 S CY � O m .i � � � •. � r � e— Q. d Z d' Q Lu o O ' .T�� 5• 6 d O { n� Ile, 0 `°c; i` w w N so vv SNil NVNVdN U r 74 W "' Ln Lo �e Packet Page -160- 4/23/2013 8.A. March 15, 2012 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, March 15, 2012 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: ALSO PRESENT: Bill Lorenz, Land Development Services Director Raymond V. Bellows, Planning Manager, Zoning Heidi Ashton- Cicko, County Attorney's Office Tom Eastman, School District Representative Page 1 of 87 Packet Page -161- CHAIRMAN: Mark P. Strain William H. Vonier Brad Schiffer Paul Midney Karen Homiak Diane Ebert Bart' Klein Phillip Brougham Melissa Ahern (present after the Iuncheon recess.) 4/23/2013 8.A. March 15, 2012 Road or State Road 82. Notwithstanding discouraging the trucks from going on Corkscrew Road, there's no way you can really control it and the drivers are independent operators. They're going to take the shortest route they can get to I -75 southbound. So that is going to have an impact. The truck traffic, to some extent, is still going to exist on that roadway no matter what we do, unless we block the road off. And, therefore, based upon those considerations and my opinions, I am voting with the motion to deny the petition. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll call for the vote. I need you both to say aye and raise your hand. If you're in favor of the vote, please signify by doing so. If you're in favor of the motion to deny, please raise your hand and say aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Those against the motion, same sign. Aye. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the motion carries 54. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Wait a minute. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, 6? The motion to deny carries 5-4. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the applicant is denied. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You voted those in favor of the motion first. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, the motion is for denial. COMMISSIONER EBERT: For denial. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Five people wanted denial. Raise your hand again if you want denial. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: (Raises hand.) COMMISSIONER HOMIA.K: (Raises hand.) COMMISSIONER EBERT: (Raises hand.) COMMISSIONER KLEIN: (Raises hand.) COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: (Raises hand.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One, two, three, four, five. What was the problem? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, when you asked for the second vote, those against the motion, I raised my hand, and so was Diane, and I know she wasn't. COMMISSIONER EBERT: No. I was the one who -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We 've got it straight. Its five against, four in favor -- I mean, five to support the motion, four against the motion. I saw a solution. I'm sorry that it didn't get there, but I still see a solution somehow. With that we'll adjourn for 10 minutes, resume -- or nine. We'll come back at 3:30 and finish up. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If everybody will please take their seats, we have two more cases to hear. These next two items have been continued from the March 1 st meeting. They're both for the same property, so we will discuss them at the same time, but we'll vote on them separately. ** *The fast one is VA- PL2011 -1410. It's called the Wahl variance at 8 Pelican Street West, Isles of Capri. The second one is BDE- PL2011- 0001409, and that's the Wahl boat dock extension. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. If you're Page 68 of 87 Packet Page -162- - - - - - -- - 4/23/2013 8.A. - March 15, 2012 going to speak on this, you have to rise. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission? Any? COMMISSIONER VONIER: I talked to staff, and I visited the property and talked to Mrs. Evans at No. 6, which is next -door neighborhood. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Nothing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody on this side? COMMISSIONER EBERT: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think I got an email from Josh asking me if I had any issues, and I didn't get back to him because I really didn't have any at this point. So -- okay. Whoever's going to make the presentation, Josh, if its you. MR- MAXWELL: Good afternoon, Josh Maxwell with Tunell, Hall & Associates for the record. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Pull that closer. MR. MAXWELL: Oh, sorry. Is that better? COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Yes. MR. MAXWELL:. Okay. Better? COMMISSIONER EBERT: It works. MR. MAXWELL: The boat dock we're bringing before you today is the exact same boat dock that has been in place since prior to 1985. The reason we're here today is we would like to put in two boat lifts, one on the side, which requires a variance, and one on the end, which requires the BDE. The dock itself was built prior to BDEs being required so, therefore, its a grandfather structure, but the boat lifts are not. And we discussed with the state about the placement of the dock. And due to aquatic reserve rules, the dock has to be built exactly where it is, or the dock has to be a marginal dock, which a marginal dock in the Marco River would not be favorable because the neighboring structures would impair ingress and egress. And so that leaves us with this option, rebuilding the exact same dock and adding the two boat lifts. We dove the site. There were no submerged resources present. We went through the ERP process and achieved an exemption from the State of Florida, an SGBP from the Army Corps of Engineers. The main reason we would like to put the lifts in, one, for the safety; when the boats are being moored in the swift current of the Marco River, they'd be moored out of the water, which will also help with water quality. Keeping the boats out of the water will prevent them from having to use bottom paint. So this exhibit here — this exhibit here shows the Wah1s, proposed dock, and the docks around it. As you can see, our protrusion distance is similar to those around and even less than some further down the river. There's one dock down the way that still protrudes approximately 100 feet out into the river. The river itself is approximately 800 feet wide so, therefore, we do not interfere with any of the navigation within the Big Marco River. How do I get this to zoom out a bit? Perfect. This exhibit shows previously there was a T dock here for approximately 17 years. The T dock, the extense of it and its mooring piles, was outlined by the red boundary, and that hatched area is the reduced preempted area that we will no longer be impounding with the new structure with the boat lifts and the new dock. And so, in essence, the proposed plan is less impactive than what was there for the last 17 years, and it is going back to the dock configuration that was built prior to 1985. So if there's any questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Phil COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Yeah. Can you put that back up, please. MR. MAXWELL: The second one? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Yeah. I just want to understand. What is there today? Is that what is outlined in white? MR MAXWELL: The white is what was taken last year when they flew the aerials. Presently, it is the L -dock configuration. When the Wahls wished to install a new seawall this past year, they went back — the DEP Page 69 of 87 Packet Page -163 4/23/2013 8.A. March 15, 2012 required them to go back to the grandfathered structure prior to the aquatic preserve, so that's why we're back to the L -dock configuration. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Pm still not there, I'm sorry. If I look at the overhead in the petition or the aerial in the petition, it shows a T dock. MR. MAXWELL: Right. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. MR. MAXWELL: Unfortunately, we don't have the latest aerials that, hopefully, were flown last month. But here's a line drawing of the existing conditions, which is just the L dock presently. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: You're confusing me now between the L dock and T dock. If I look at the aerial photo — MR. MAXWELL: Yes. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: -- in the petition, is that the existing dock? MR. MAXWELL: That was the existing dock up until last year when they removed the portion of the sea -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: This is not current? MR. MAXWELL: Right. So the new aerials, helpfully, will be released here in the next few months. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: And so that dock protruded out how far? MR. MAXWELL: The existing dock protrudes out 58.6 feet to the mooring piles, a total of 41.5 feet to the end of the terminal platform. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay, thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions? Bill? COMMISSIONER VONIER: Why was the section of the T dock removed? MR. MAXWELL: The T dock was added after the aquatic preserve rules were put into effect, at least that was the determination by the State of Florida. So that portion of the T dock was removed to come into compliance with the aquatic preserve rules so that the Wahls could install their new seawall. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Okay. So it was illegal, basically? MR. MAXWELL: I'm not sure exactly what date it was installed, so Pin not sure if it was truly built before or after the adoption of the aquatic preserve or before or after the adoption of the BDEs. But, unfortunately, the aerials aren't of the clearest quality for back then. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The depth shown here, they're feet; is that correct? MR MAXWELL: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Why do you need to come out anyway? I mean, I know you historically were out there. But normally when we do these extensions, we do it to give people water depth. You certainly don't need it. MR. MAXWELL: We don't need the water depths but, unfortunately, if the Wahls would like to moor two vessels, they will require at least some form of a finger pier. A marginal wharf would be the only other option as far as the DEP is concerned because of the aquatic preserve rule; they only allow you to go out to negative four feet, which is at the base of their riprap. And so if we were to go with any other allowable dock configuration, they would only be restricted to one vessel, and it would also be difficult to moor the vessel due to the configuration of the neighboring structures and the swift current of the Marco River. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So what you're saying is because of grandfathering, you can keep the shape? MR. MAXWELL: Exactly, just as almost every dock on the Marco River. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Any adjustments to this shape will cause you to go back to the basic configuration, which would be much less than that. What's the reason you don't put the lift on the other side of the dock? MR. MAXWELL: Just the access to it. The backside of the dock is just not large enough for, you know, the majority of the boats that are on the water today. I believe it's, you know, 15 feet, which typically you would like to leave the back 4 to 5 feet of any vessel open for loading and unloading. And so, therefore, you know, we're restricted to approximately a 15 -foot vessel, which is fairly small Page 70 of 87 Packet Page -164- - - 4/23/2013 8.A. March 15, 2012 compared to everything else on the waterway in that area COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So what you're saying is that there's no place on the other side you could put a lift that would allow you to access it from your dock? MR. MAXWELL: Not that would be easily accessible as far as nonnal ingress and egress. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But from my experience when I go on people's boats, they usually go in one zone towards the rear. So why couldn't that zone be what's up against the dock there? MR. MAXWELL: You would then be forcing them to moor the boat backwards and have -- make them reverse over a boat lift structure, which is typically not a common structure. There's people that do do it in the county, but that's usually when that's the only choice they have. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Actually, I was thinking the back would be at where your dock is where they would go in head first. But you have great water depth here. MR. MAXWELL: Hmm? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You really have great water depth here. MR. MAXWELL: Oh, yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Which we rarely ever see. So you really could pull these boats in closer to shore. MR. MAXWELL: We could pull the bow of the one to the eastern side in closer, but we also don't want to be getting them too close to the riprap revetment. That's at the base of their seawall. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right, thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Melissa? COMMISSIONER AHERN: Would the neighboring houses have the same issues if they were looking to do something with their dock? MR. MAXWELL: Yes. COMMISSIONER AHERN: So by you coming closer to their property, you're not going to impede them in the future if they wanted to make changes; they're under the same compliance? MR. MAXWELL: Correct, because they have similar water depths. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? COMMISSIONER VONIER: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Bill. COMMISSIONER VONIER The property on the — to the left of the — looking from seaward, looks like that property encroaches on the riparian rights of the Wahls; is that correct? MR. MAXWELL: It's within the setbacks. If it was a new dock, it would not be compliant. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Okay. So that basically is the reason that they can't use -- bring a boat in from that area, because that's so close? MR. MAXWELL: Well, its that and there's no practical place to install a boat lift that would allow easy mooring. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Okay. Another question. There are two apparent markers or tall piles off of the dock. What are those? MR- MAXWELL: Those are the existing mooring piles, what were there for the previous dock. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Josh, you said something. You said when the seawall was repaired they had to change the T dock. What does the seawall repair have to do with the change in the sea dock. MR- MAXWELL: The State of Florida, when they applied for the seawall permit, they looked at the aerials available on Collier appraisers site and realized that the dock that was there -- and their grandfather date was not the dock that was currently there. So in order to issue that permit, they made the Wahls modify the dock to the L dock that is there now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the only thing that was grandfathered was the L dock, T apparently may have been added on and just wasn't done through anybody that -- maybe DEP or whatever? MR. MAXWELL: Right, either not through a permit or not provable easily with aerials. Page 71 of 87 Packet Page -165- 4/23/2013 8.A. March 15, 2012 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you said that if they — they can't modify this dock without -- because it's grandfathered in, basically? MR. MAXWELL: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that means if they wanted to lengthen the dock, they couldn't? MR. MAXWELL: They couldn't lengthen the dock and they can't shift it any further west, unfortunately. We did bring that up with DEP, and they said -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could they shorten it? MR. MAXWELL: No, we could not shorten. We actually can't even make the terminal platform smaller because then we're not in compliance with the state's criteria. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which is? MR. MAXWELL: That it has to be the exact same footprint because I asked about possibly modifying the footprint to allow a boat lift on the left side and just shorten up the terminal platform, and they told me that would not be compliant then with the state rules. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you cant do a less restrictive boat dock without violating state rules? MR- MAXWELL: Because -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Boy, that is goofy. MR. MAXWELL: Welcome to our world. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Holy cow. You're sure of this? MR. MAXWELL: Yes, because I asked the same question, because I had the same thoughts you did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wow, because that does -- yeah, that does change things. Okay. Anybody else? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think what that says is the state does not want that dock there. It's in the wrong place. So what they're saying, if you touch it in anyway, it goes away; you've got to rebuild it according to the code. MR. MAXWELL: To the current aquatic preserve. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So the grandfathering aspect of this isn't to lessen the grandfathering. You can't -- you've only got the grandfather, or if you have the grandson, you've got to build it from scratch. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. But if they try to put it where it would be more compatible from the code perspective, then the guy next door, who's in violation of his riparian rights, ends up -- this guy can't do anything. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. So he's kind of like in a catch -22. The guy next door is really the one pushing you to where you've got to be. MR MAXWELL: Theoretically, we also -- if we could, if we didn't have the aquatic preserve, if this was anywhere else in the county, we would be able to shift this dock to the left and not require the variance. But, unfortunately, with Isles of Capri being in the aquatic preserve, that's not an option. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any questions? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, just one thing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: When we were talking before, you said you wanted to get the second boat and everything, but you have too much boat length anyway. You have a 75 -foot lot. You're really only allowed half of that. So, you know, what you said to me is we need to get the other boat lift so we can get a bigger boat and violate the length requirements. MR. MAXWELL: The Wahls would like to have, you know, the two vessels just like anybody else in Isles of Capri has. Just because we are over the — I mean, we're allowed to, I believe, meet four of the five primary, and in this case four of the five secondary, which we still do with this dock. So I can see that being a concern, but -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Don't get us started on the scorecard again. This board's wasted a lot of time on that. MR. MAXWELL: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If you read that carefully it says, before we could give approval, you have to -- so, you know, that just sets us a threshold from which we could go forward and give you an extension. It's not the, "you hit the score, you win." But — anyway. Page 72 of 87 Packet Page -166- - - - - - 4/23/2013 8.A. March 15, 2012 How big are the boats you're going to put in there? MR. MAXWELL: We would like to be able to do, you know, 30 to 35 and then something around 25 so they could have, like, an offshore style vessel and possibly a bay boat or a pontoon boat and a bay boat. Right now they don't necessarily have the boats ready to go because they want to find out what kind of dock they can have first. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER- So, essentially, you've got 75 foot of property line, you want 60 feet of boat in the back of it. MR. MAXWELL: (Nods head.) COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER- Okay. Thanks. I'm done, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? COMMISSIONER VONIER: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Bill. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Let me ask a question. Looking at the property to the right where they have no boats -- MR. MAXWELL: Right. COMMISSIONER VONIER: -- and you said everybody has two boats. Well, let's look at that part. Forget who — that they don't have a boat. Let's say I bought that property tomorrow. There's no way I could put two boats in there. MR. MAXWELL: You could do a similar configuration to what we're proposing. COMMISSIONER VONIER: If I came in here and -- because of going to the right I couldn't get in there with a boat dock. I'd have to put one on the end and, actually, they have — would have a right to a boat dock on the long section of their dock. MR. MAXWELL: You mean a boat lift? COMMISSIONER VONIER: A boat lift. MR. MAXWELL: Right. COMMISSIONER VONIER: And there's room there for them to have one legally. MR. MAXWELL: Right. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Okay. But it would be -- MR. MAXWELL: They would have to come before you for a BDE, though. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Yes, but it would become restrictive -- more restrictive for them if we put a boat lift on the Wahl side on that -- not on the end of the pier, but on the side, one that would encroach on their riparian rights. MR. MAXWELL: Yes, it encroaches on the riparian line and, yes, it is closer to the neighbors' riparian rights, but it does not affect their ingress and egress whatsoever, because you would be having a boat lift that is perpendicular to the shoreline to which you'd be pulling straight in and straight out of, so you'd be backing into the Big Marco River. So you wouldn't be inferring with the Wahls' boat lift, and the Wahls would not be inferring with any potential future lift on the neighboring property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Josh. Now, is there a staff report? MS. GUNDLACH: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I'm Nancy Gundlach, principal planner with the Department of Land Development Services, and I an here to speak on behalf of the variance. Staff is recommending approval of a 9.3 -foot variance, and that's from the eastern riparian line. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But you just said the variance. You're not here for the boat dock? MS. GUNDLACH: Pm not here for the boat dock. Mike Sawyer's here for the boat dock. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've done plenty of boat dock extensions. How come we have two people doing the same thing? MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. I wanted Nancy to do the variance because she's more experienced with that, and Mike is learning the ropes on the variances, so he's working with her on that. But Mike's Page 73 of 87 Packet Page -167- 4/23/2013 8.A. March 15, 2012 done a lot of boat docks, so he's handling that aspect. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I have no problem. I was just wondering why two different people are doing the same thing. MR BELLOWS: It's kind of a cross - training. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay. Okay, Mike. MR- SAWYER: For the record, Mike Sawyer, senior planner — I'm sorry, project manager, now, for plantiing services. You've got the staff report that was originally dated February 17th and was revised on the 22nd. We are recommending approval of the boat dock extension. I'm here to answer any questions you might have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions of either staff personnel on the variance or the boat dock extension? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You know, Mike, to me this is the classic place, which is -- the legacy dock in Collier, I think, is a 4 -foot or so dock, 5 -foot, maybe, along the seawall where boats are attached to it, which they can do because they have the water. Rarely do we ever get a chance to do that. So why are we supporting this extension? Because, essentially, the extension is only needed to meet what the state has grandfathered in. MR. SAWYER Right. Basically, when we have docks that have been in place before a lot of our regulations, the general rule is you are able to repair and replace board for board, and that includes any -- anything as far as the dock fixture itself or even boathouses. In this case we looked at what they were proposing to do with the boat dock extension. It really isn't affecting the dock itself. It's actually the extension that includes the boat lift and the vessels themselves. So that's really why they're here for the extension. We looked at it as an existing condition with the existing dock, and the request was actually more for just the lift and the vessel, primarily just at the very end. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER. But they did have piers out there, which then would be allowed -- MR. SAWYER Correct, which are out further than the current lift. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And they were grandfathered in. MR. SAWYER: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So if this whole dock is grandfathered in, then why are we dealing with it? I mean, obviously, the one on the side's in question. But don't you agree that the dock is grandfathered in by the state and us? You're saying that the lift itself outside that is why we're here? AIR. SAWYER: I think -- correct. I think to a very large degree, I think you're exactly correct. What we're really doing is being more specific on the facility that they're going to have now which, as you say, actually encroaches more than the mooring poles out on the very end. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER- And they had the right to the mooring poles; is that right? MR. SAWYER: Correct. Those are actually going to be going away. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Are you comfortable with the length of the boats? I mean, why are we going out of our way to provide all these, you know, excess boat length based on the site, which is what would block the neighbors' view, though, multiple boats. MR. SAWYER: But, yeah. That's one of the criteria, and they're able to miss one of the criteria, according to the LDC. I'm just saying what -- how staff reviews. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER. Asa scorecard. MR. SAWYER: Staff has to stay by the scoreboard. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER. We've lived there before. Okay. Thanks, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. SAWYER Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, you want to call for the public speakers? Please come up and use either Page 74 of 87 Packet Page -168- - - - - 4/23/2013 8.A. March 15, 2012 microphone. And we ask that you limit your discussion to five minutes. Wail until you're called. Ray's going to call you out. MR. BELLOWS: Joshua Maxwell? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joshua Maxwell. You already did -- you put a speaker slip in? You're the prime speaker. MR. MAXWELL: Just want to be prepared. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Who's next? MR. BELLOWS: I don't see any others. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then the three of you that did rise to be sworn in, I know you then want to speak, you figure out the order. Whoever wants to go first, come on up and use the -- you already did that. Just come on up and use the speaker. MS. EVANS: Good afternoon. My name is Joan A. -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pull this little thing closer to you. There you go. Get your voice in. Thank you. MS. EVANS: My name is Jane A. Evans. I live at 6 West Pelican Street, Isles of Capri. I am in -- the east neighbor, side neighbor of the Wahls. I've been a Florida resident since 1959, and I've lived at this property for 19 years. I received a letter which -- the first letter from the consultants for the Wahls — I m just going to begin about what happened — and it told me about what they wanted to do. I really wasn't so sure, and the maps I didn't understand that well. But anyway, shortly after, a knock at the door, and the Wahls cause to say hello. They had came into town. So how are you? I'm fine. Well — but I said, I'm not that fine because I just received notice of what you want to do, and I'll tell you right now I'm going to say no. Oh, Joan, Joan. Come in, look at this letter. It says you want two boat lifts. You want to encroach on my property. No, no, Joan. That is a mistake. We only want one boat lift. I said, well, read the latter. It says two boat lifts. No, no. Let's go outside, Joan, like Hansel and Gretel, you know. We don't want anything different. We want to replace everything just the way it is. Okay. And anyway, that ended. Well, this whole situation has brought up something that has been in question with me for a long time. I have grandchildren and I have great grandchildren. And for a long while — they've always been saying, Nana, if you'd put in a boat lift, we'd come to see you more often. Well, at this time in my life, the sunset of my years, I have decided that I want to put a boat lift in and have already had different bids, and I will be applying for an application. Now, getting back to what the Wahls want to do. I have no animosity towards them. I like them. I'm happy they're building this beautiful home. I've had 18 different homes from here to outside of Tallahassee, everywhere. And this is my first time — in fact, my daughter laughed. She said, Mother, you're going to be an activist after all these years. And I said, well, I think it's wrong with what they want to do. And I want to tell you that I feel thatthe encroachment and the pilings, the existing mooring pilings out there, they're intertwined. When I put my boat lift in, those pilings that are existing -- and I don't really -- I'll tell you another story after that — believe they're legal. That's going to impede coming in, because the Marco River really is treacherous. I've even seen the charter boats. I mean, the current's unbelievable. And they're out — if you stand at the end of my dock, the boundary survey, and you look out — CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need to use the mike, Miss. Turn around and use the mike. I'm sorry. Do the best you can by using the mike. MS. EVANS: If you look out -- if you stand at the edge of my -- the west end of my boundary and you look out, it almost looks as though those existing moming pilings are right in line; however, I realize -- I've been studying the map and learning more about it -- that the map says they're six feet away from my survey line. It's hard to tell. And they -- the mooring pilings, the existing mooring pilings, extend beyond my dock, so that when you're coming from the gulf and want to come back in, I've seen boats that are out there trying to fish in front of my property, charter boat, they have a hell of a time getting in. Page 75 of 87 Packet Page -169- 4/23/2013 8.A. March 15, 2012 And with the Wahls -- and I also wanted to say, because it's the truth, he has a boatyard, and he build Alaskan trawlers. Who's to say whether he's going to put an Alaskan trawler out there? Anyway, I feel that the variance for both things — Pm asking you to deny it. And I also want to say the survey of the boat traffic hasn't been done, and it definitely is heavy, heavy boat traffic. And as far as the mooring pilings and the dock that was removed, I knew the man -- Ed Lemka was his name -- who owned the house that was built, then demolished, because I bought his property at 18 East Pelican in the mid '80s. And I remember him coming over and talking about putting the dock in and also the pilings in, because he couldn`t wait to bring his big boat over from Goodland. And I also know that the man who owned my house -- there's only one owner before me. We were living in Key Largo at the time, and my husband, of course, knew Chris Middlebrook, the broker, and he referred to him as Old Man Davis, Earl Davis was owner of Marco Marine years ago. At the time he was 90. And I think he watched everything like a hawk. And that's why as long as I lived at 18 East Pelican there was never a boat out at those existing mooring pilings and boat dock. Now, after that -- we moved after a year, so I don't know what happened in between. But I can tell you as long as I've lived there, there's never been a boat docked there. Maybe a boat came with a bunch of little kids picking them up or taking them off, but the owner or — I forgot what his name is -- Madeiras — Mr. Madeiras never had a boat there. There's never been a boat there. And whatever they want to do I feel is detrimental to what I have. I hope that I can leave property that's entirely mine and legal. And I'd like to read — CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Miss, you're getting to the end of -- MS. EVANS: Can you hear me? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pm right here. MS. EVANS: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've used up more than all your time, so I've got to ask you — MS. EVANS: Oh, I have? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- to come to a conclusion. MS. EVANS: Well, I just want you to put yourselves in my position and think of it as your house and what they want to do and what I want to do, and I definitely want to put a boat lift in now, and I guess make me happy to see the kids come over to see me more often, and everything is legal. I just -- and I don't have money like the Wahls have to be appealing or anything. CHA]RMAN STRAIN: Yeah. I think we've heard enough. Thank you very much. We'll see you again when you put your boat lift in. Come on up, sir. MR. SPIEGEL: Good afternoon. My name is Art Spiegel, and I am at 4 Pelican Street West. I stand before you simply to respectfully ask that the board follow the guidelines that were established or the laws that were established and not allow a variance for a project that is not, in fact, a hardship for the applicants but is more a convenience for the applicants. A variance would definitely have a negative effect on the neighbors of the established -- and the established laws that are put into effect would be a detriment, or excuse me, the existing laws should be there to protect us, not be a detriment to us. Why should we be standing here trying to argue on behalf of the county? We have to remember that the applicant was asked to remove an illegal section of dock that their advisers or consultants seem to not want to have come out of their mouth. It was an illegal section of dock, and they did take it out, although, now they want to put a boat lift in the exact spot where that was, where that illegal section was. And it will take up substantially more square footage than, in fact, they took out by placing a boat there. Additionally, they're proposing to put a boat lift on the outside of the end of the dock where, in fact, originally there was a boat on the inside of the dock which is, in fact, where most of the boat lifts are on Isles of Capri. And I take exception to the consultant saying where most of the boat owners on Capri have two boats, a big boat and a small boat. Well, maybe they have lots that are 150 feet and not 75 feet. And to put two boats on one dock the way they've situated them is going to create a situation where neighbors are going to lose view, they're going to Page 76 of 87 Packet Page -170- 4/23/2013 8.A. March 15, 2012 lose their rights for navigation. For instance, Mrs. Evans, who would like to put a boat in, will then have to apply for a variance for her property. And if she applies for a variance, that will then affect my property because I won't be able to get my boat in without a variance if she moves hers over, and this will create a chain reaction. I know that there are criteria that they have to meet four or five of, et cetera. And Pm sure if you go down through the criteria, you will fmd that in both the substantial criteria and additional criteria, four out of five are not met, and I certainly hope that the county or you, as representatives of the county, will take that into consideration. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. MR. RENALDI: Good afternoon. My name is Anthony Renaldi. I live at 10 West Pelican Street. I have no animosities towards the Wahls. I could only speak on behalf of me living in that property and owning that property for 27 years. In the 27 years I've been there, there's never been one boat at 8 West Pelican Street, not one. So 27 years that I've been there. Prior to that, I have no idea. The boat dock on the side that was — that Mr. Spiegel said was illegal, it was illegal and was falling down, to be honest with you, because it was very unsafe from my recollections. And I knew the owner, the previous owner -- the last two owners. Which Mr. Lempka built that house. I bought my house in'85, and I believe he built his in'83. So he was my neighbor. He never, never had a boat in any of the docks there. The pierings -- the pillings — pilings — I'm sorry. The pilings that he put in, I don't even think they were legal, because he was having a tough time, as Joan Evans said, taking his boat from Goodland. So he just gave up on it. And he had a boat in Fort Lauderdale and he had another up in Brea, California, so he was a pretty wealthy man. Whatever his problem was, I have no idea, with the boat -- I didn't get into all the particulars -- but he would loved to have his boat there. And he'd always tell me, Tony, I have a 35 -foot boat, you know, it's over in Fort Lauderdale, and blah, blab, blah, and I can't get it over here, and I had a little 19 -foot boat at the time, a Rabello, and now I have a 23 -foot, and he says, Tony, you don't have to go any bigger. That`s big enough for your boat. The waters are tough. I have to come into -- from the river driving in. An ideal situation, naturally, would be coming in from the side because the current there in the Marco River is just unbelievable. I mean, you can throw a refrigerator in the water, and its out in the Gulf of Mexico. So I ask your pleasure to deny this because I just think it's not fair. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Are there any comments from the applicant at this point? MR. HALL: Good afternoon. For the record, Tim Hall with Turrell Hall & Associates. I work with Josh as well. And I think I wanted to try to clarify something, that the boat dock extension and the variance that we're coming in for right now are for the lifts. The boats can moor there now as it is. The structure's exempt and the mooring associated with that structure is also exempt from the requirements. The reason we're here before you is to add the lifts, which is really a -- one of the gentlemen said a convenience factor. Absolutely, it is more convenient to have the boats on the lift, but it's also safer. They've documented as well as we have the conditions on the Marco River can get relatively rough. And having the boat on a lift out of the water is a safer condition for that than if it has to remain in the water and banging up against the dock back and forth, you know, all the time. But I wanted you guys to understand that because the structure's exempt, the mooring associated with it is also exempt. What we're here asking for is the ability to put in the lifts to support those vessels. CHA11tMAN STRAIN: Any questions? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER- I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What do you mean the boat's exempt? In other words, you're allowed now to have a boat in that setback? MR. HALL: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: From -- how would you get there? MR. HALL: Because the structure is exempt, if I moor a boat along that structure, then that mooring is also Page 77 of 87 Packet Page -171- 4/23/2013 8.A. March 15, 2012 exempt. It comes with the — COMMIS SIONER SCHIFFER: The structure's exempt, but we have a requirement and the requirement includes the boat, that you can't put it in that setback. So when you dock it you're violating the side setback. MR- HALL: No. It would be the same as if I parked my lawn mower beside my house in the side yard setback. Pm not required to -- if I put a shed over the lawn mower, Pm required to get the variance. I'm not required to get the variance to park the lawn mower there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER- It would be okay to do if our code said that when you measure the setback of a house you include the width of your lawn mower. MR. HALL: The variants only talks about structure. It doesn't include the vessel, because — CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you get the definition of dock facility up, Ray, while they're talking? MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. For the record, Ray Bellows. The dock facility is grandfathered in and vested, and the dock -- the mooring of the boat on a dock that's preexisting contemplated that, and it was prior to the setback requirement. So its not -- its a preexisting, nonconforming dock that has rights to continue. Now, they want to expand upon that by adding the boat lifts, which now requires, under a current code, to come in for a boat dock extension and a variance. But if they don't -- if they chose not to apply for the boat dock -- or for the boat lift, they could still moor the boats there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You know, and I agree with you that the -- let's say the wood structure of the dock is a nonconforming, but its grandfathered in. No question there. MR. BELLOWS: And mooring the boat there would be part of that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But why do you have to moor the boat there? They have such deep water, they can come around the other side. They can do a lot of things. You know, the width of the boat is part of our boat dock facilities. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. But if it's a preexisting dock, I don't see how we can prohibit that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well — MR. HALL: And I don't understand. You keep saying coming around to the other side. Do you mean coming around behind the L? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, look at the depth of the water there. I mean, you can -- MR. HALL: Well, I understand the depth of the water, but how would you maneuver the boat to get to the backside? The L is in the way. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I don't know, come around the backside. I mean, I'm not a boat guy, obviously, and you are. COMMISSIONER AHERN: That would be difficult; would be very difficult. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You can't do it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you're not a boat guy — COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: We'll give you a boat, and you try and put it in. We'll see how it works. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Anyway. MR. HALL: I mean, you want to bring your boat in and out of the open side of the dock. Trying to get it through that 29 -foot area, turn it around, and bringing it into a lift or something on the other side of that L would be very difficult. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, it looks like it has about 30 feet there, but anyway. And maybe the boat's too big. Maybe the boat I have in my non - boating mind is small enough to do that. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Tim, I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Melissa asked -- Melissa and then Diane. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Ray, the property, I guess, to the west, that's also encroaching in the side setback, is that con -ect? MR. BELLOWS: You're referring to that structure? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. BELLOWS: It appears to be, yes. COMMISSIONER AHERN: And so currently they are under the same -- MR. BELLOWS: Preexisting non — COMMISSIONER AHERN: — preexisting criteria. So the same criteria is allowing them to -- Page 78 of 87 Packet Page -172- 4/23/2013 8.A. March 15, 2012 MR. BELLOWS: Applies to many of those docks. Pm Iooking at the aerial on Google Earth, and it looks like a lot of docks that may be in the same situation. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Right. Well, that`s kind of where I was going. I wanted to make sure that I was — okay. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Tim, are you saying that the docking facility there now cannot be changed; they cannot take that L portion off? MR. HALL: Right. The way the aquatic rules read is that if you make any change to that dock itself, then the whole thing has to come out and it goes to -- only a marginal wharf would be allowed. They're not allowed to make any changes to it without -- without eliminating the whole thing. I agree with you that it's not — its not a rule that makes a lot of sense, but that is the way that it reads. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I see the depth is there, so that's not a problem. But you're right, state rules. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What is the marginal dock that you could build there? MR. HALL: It would just basically be a 4- foot -wide walkway along -- marginal to the seawall. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Which would allow you to dock boats alongside that and essentially maintain the 20 foot -- MR. HALL: You'd have to come in parallel to them, and then — so you would actually be maneuvering your boats within the two docks on the outside. So it would make -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That looks harry, I agree with that. MR. HALL: It would make getting in and out harder. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Ray, when did -- the setbacks for docks, when was that established, before or after these docks with the boathouse next to it were built? MR. BELLOWS: This dock was built prior to that those standards being adopted. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So when everybody was out there building, there was no setback requirement from the — MR. BELLOWS: There was no boat dock extension process in place, and we didn't have those kind of setback requirements. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tim, if — let's pretend there was no dock there at all. This was a barren piece of property, these homeowners came in to build a house, and they went to the DEP to get a dock. What would be allowed there? MR. HALL: The marginal wharf. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just the marginal wharf? MR. HALL: Just the marginal wharf along the seawall. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So they couldn't even put a finger dock there or anything else? MR. HALL: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Anybody else have any questions? MR. HALL: They could put a boat lift -- they could put a marginal wharf and a boat lift. But in terms of the structure, the marginal wharf would be -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: So it would be the 75 -foot length in here? You're saying that's four foot or -- MR. HALL: They could come out with a dock 4 feet from the seawall. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. And then they would have the 75 feet to park their boat? In other words, with the two boats this way up against it? MR. HALL: Yeah. They'd be parallel to that dock. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. MF- HALL: But if you look at the way that the docks are on both sides of it, than they're maneuvering in an envelope between other existing structures. And it just is -- it makes it harder to get a boat in and out. Page 79 of 87 Packet Page -173- 4/23/2013 8.A. March 15, 2012 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One more question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Why wouldn't they let them build a perpendicular dock? I mean, why would this lot be unique? MR. HALL: When they established the aquatic preserve rules, there is a provision in there that you can't go out further than minus 4 feet with any dock. And the way they interpret it, it actually means that your boat as well is supposed to fit within that same envelope. In this case, that's simply not possible because the depths are four feet right next to the riprap at the seawall. So they allow them the minimum, which is the marginal wharf, and then the boat outside of that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then all the other sites we've seen on the island and stuff are not in that same zone? MR. HALL: No. Actually, all of them -- it depends upon the water depth. All of the docks along this river, if they go into DEP and ask for revisions to their docks, they're going to be brought under the same criteria. They either have to leave them as they are right now or go to a marginal wharf. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER. All right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tim, thank you. I have one question of whoever did the variance. You guys have got me confused now, not that you look alike. Nancy, thank you. MS. GUNDLACH: I did the variance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How did you determine that the desire to have a boat lift on the east side of this L dock was a hardship? I mean, I've read your criteria, but I can't figure it out. Because they don't need to have two boat lifts. They could have one boat lift. And if they wanted one boat lift for a big enough boat to go offshore and inland, they could do that. So where's the hardship related to the need for the variance for a boat lift on the east side? MS. GUNDLACH: Okay. So you're saying they shouldn't have the second boat lift in that location? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'in not saying -- I'm asking to understand the analysis of how -- a variance is required if there's a proven hardship. What is the hardship that is considered on the second boat lift? And I could see if they had a dock and they needed to have a variance for a boat lift, but how is a hardship for a second — how do you say there's a hardship because now they want two? I mean, I know it's different than the other people, but the other people aren't changing their docks. MS. GUNDLACH: Okay. Are you saying, like, having that second proposed boat lift on the east side of the dock -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MS. GUNDLACH: -- how is that a hardship as opposed to just mooring the boat there? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Since that's the one that's subject to the variance, yes. So how is that a hardship? I mean, I just don't — if it was the only one they could possibly have and that's the only place they could dock a boat, if they wanted a lift for that, I would say, yeah, its potentially a hardship. Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. For the record, Ray Bellows. And I've read the criteria and discussed it with Nancy. It was my understanding that the hardship is the fact that can't shift the dock over and, you know, then can concurrently moor a boat there. So if you can currently moor a boat there, then the only purpose of this petition is to put a boat lift in. And they can't shift the dock over. That was the reason I didn't object. It's not that — you know, they can still have two boats there; we can't prohibit that. The boat can be moored there. It's just whether its on a lift or not. CHAIRMAN STRAW: Okay. But under your criteria then, you're saying that they are entitled to two boats? Do we have a -- I mean -- MR. BELLOWS: They still can do it; if you deny this petition, they could still have two boats. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. But the issue is the boat lift. I think everybody's made that real clear. The issue is the boat lift. And our variance requirements are you've got to prove hardship, and Pm not sure -- Page 80 of 87 Packet Page -174- 4/23/2013 8.A. - March 15, 2012 MR. BELLOWS: Well, our hardship was they couldn't move the boat dock over. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But they couldn't — yeah, but the hardship is they want two boats. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. And they could do it if they could have shifted the dock over. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So is the desire to have two boats on lifts considered a hardship when you have one that doesn't need the variance? MR. BELLOWS: I don't think staff looked at it that way. When I looked at it, it was that they couldn't shift it over to meet the setback. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'm just, again, trying to figure out -- if I owned a home and I could have one boat and the place I could put it was in a setback, yeah, I think that would be a hardship. But if I had one boat that was free and clear of any setback concern or conflict but I wanted to have a second one, is that really a hardship for me because I can't have two but I want two? MR. BELLOWS: I understand what you're saying, but we didn't look at it that way. We looked at it that they couldn't shift. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm having a hard time getting there is what I'm saying. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. I understand what you're saying, but we were thinking more that the dock is locked in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, that's another way to look at it. I don't doubt it a bit. Anybody have — Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One more thought. And, Heidi, this might be a conversation with you is when you have a nonconforming use, you're not allowed to enhance it in any way, correct, or expand it, enhance it? Certainly, nonconforming means we're not allowed to, in any way, increase the nonconforming use. Adding these lifts to the nonconforming dock, could that be a problem? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Well, generally, yes, you can't increase your nonconformity. Now, they're talking about some state rules regarding docks, which I'm not familiar with. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And we're also talking about our rules. These are grandfathered docks. In other words, these docks would not be in compliance. So -- and I don't see why, you know, him saying that if you touch the dock and change it - -1 guess if you add a lift to it, an improvement like that doesn't trigger anybody's concern, but -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Well, as far as the riparian line, they're currently built within the riparian line, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, not once you put a boat alongside. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: You know, the protrusion -- the existing protrusion would he a nonconformity. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think the water depth might bring into a concern over the original deed for nonconforming. We wouldn't -- if this dock came in now based on water depth, I think we'd have a hard time understanding why they would need it. That may be where the nonconformity also falls into play, so — COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the other problem I have is that you're adding a pile into the setback. I mean, if -- I don't necessarily agree with Ray, but let's pretend I do. You could come in and dock a boat now. No one's going to chase you off, but lifting it in the air is a completely different thing, especially to the neighbors and putting structures out there to do that. That's not the same as you can put a boat there now. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have a question for Tim. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Ray wanted to say something first, then we'll get to you. MR-BELLOWS: I just wanted to respond to Brad's comment. I understand the concept that they're making a change by asking for this boat lift, but I think, talking to staff, the single - family lots are allowed two boat docks or two slips, and if they didn't ask for the lift, they could have the two boats moored there on the dock without coming to this Planning Commission or to staff. Now, is the installation of a lift safer than mooring the boats on this river with the heavy stream flow? In our opinion, it was a safer condition. And did the boat lift on this east side of the dock represent a hazard to navigation pulling in or not? And — or would it impede the property owner to the east of the developing one? And it didn't appear to be so from our standpoint. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But Ray, I don't think we can save the community from water currents by boat lifts. I mean, that's not our job. In other words, I think adding a boat lift within the setback is a problem. If the boat can dock there, let's just say the boat can dock there. Page 81 of 87 Packet Page -175- 4/23/2013 8.A. March 15, 2012 MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, they can boat there -- or dock there without this petition. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But that doesn't mean we have to structurally, you know, enhance this nonconforming use by adding other structural components to lift it in the air. MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. I'm just telling you our staffs standpoint. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other discussion? Diane, did you -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes, I do. Tim, at the end of the dock, I see you have a boat lift there. Could they take the bigger boat that they want to put there and put it at the end of that L? Can they — you put the boat lift there and they have the big boat at the end? MR. HALL: The issue runs in with — looking at the size of the boats coming in perpendicular to the seawall, again, is preferrable. It gets it closer to the seawall. So from a visual standpoint and sticking out into the waterway, it's less being on the side than it is out at the end. The other thing is the length of the L at the end kind of limits the accessibility to the boat if you have -- I think it's -- I'm sorry. Do you know what the width of that L is? Is it 20 feet? We have that here. It's just a matter of them being able to access the front and the back of the boat. COMMISSIONER EBERT: But if you're bringing a boat in, there is --I mean, we don't have to worry about water depth at all. But if you put a boat lift out at the end, between the two red lines, you can get a pretty big boat in there. MR. HALL: Well, if you went between the two red lines, yes, ma'am, but again, you'd have this tiny little access into the boat, and that just is not -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Twenty feet? You told me that this is -- MR. HALL: If you put — you just said you could put a boat between the two red lines. I mean, that would be a -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: No, no, no. So rather than parallel to the boat, you put it this way. MR HALL: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Between the required setback and the riparian lines, how many feet is that? MR. HALL: Between the riparian line and the setback is 15 feet. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. So they could get -- on that -- and how wide is a boat lift? MR. ]CALL: I mean, if you had -- you've got 15 feet of setback on both sides of the lot. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. MR. HALL: So I would guess then you would have about 42 or 45 feet between the two of them. COMMISSIONER EBERT: So you can get a big boat at the end of that dock? MR. HALL: You can -- yes, ma'am. I'm not arguing that. You can put whatever size boat, really, you want out there. I'm just saying that in terms of trying to, then, maintain the boat, if you don't have access along the side of the boat, then when it comes to washing it down and keeping it clean and getting materials on and off become more difficult if you're restricted to only smaller sections of the boat. If you have a 35 -foot boat, the best place for it here is alongside the dock, not parallel like you're explaining. COMMISSIONER EBERT: All right. But we had a 42 -foot boat, so I do understand, so -- and we had many of them that put their boat up against the dock just the way I'm saying, which was perfect, because with the rivers -- waters and everything, its probably even a little bit easier than to by and back out into something that's trying to move you the other way. And so that's what I was asking, if you could -- for the bigger boat, if they put it out there and just -- I don't know for the second boat — to go -- they really wouldn't need to be going into the setback. MR- HALL: With the lift? COMMISSIONER EBERT: With a lift or even — if on the end. If you park the boat there in a lift, to me there's plenty of room. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Tim? MR. HALL: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Do I understand that L is 22 foot and change long or -- MR. HALL: Correct COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. If you parked a 35 -foot boat against it, okay, you've got 13 foot of Page 82 of 87 Packet Page -176- 4/23/2013 8.A. - March 15, 2012 boat hanging out one end or the other, correct? MR. HALL: Correct, right. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: And that was your point about servicing the boat MR. HALL: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Thank you. COMMISSIONER EBERT: That's not a big deal. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Mark had to step out for a minute. Is there any other questions from any of the Planning Commission members? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, let me just ask. Ray, the requirement that the boats not exceed half of the property line, is that a — you know, what's the strength of that? And don't tell me just one item on a checklist. I mean, isn't the intent that this board, we give approval of things in these boat docks extensions, that these are some conditions that have to be met? Is there -- essentially, they're stating that they don't want boats more than 50 percent across the back of a house, correct? And I think they're — probably a legacy of that is your wharf docks, you know. MR. HALL: 1, actually, have asked the same question. I don't know if it has to do with the amount of shoreline that the vessels take up or how far out they go. If you have a -- we're trying to figure out what the old intent of that criteria was. And in this case, if it was associated with view, I could see where they wouldn't want a long boat perpendicular to the shoreline because, again, it sticks out furl-her. Leaving it to half the length of the shoreline then, essentially, gives you a 45- degree view angle if the boat is it the center of the property. So I don't know if when those were established if it was for keeping the shoreline open or for actually limiting the protrusion. We never have been able to really figure that out. MR. BELLOWS: And Pd just like to add we're working on an LDC amendment for boat docks. And we were discussing this particular criterion, and we're thinking about eliminating it because, as Tim indicated, there's -- I think have been a misapplication of that. We've been using it as length of the boat not to exceed 50 percent of the width, but I think a better case could be made that you're trying to regulate how much lot frontage is being taken up. But we are working on that language. Right now, I think the way staff has been applying it -- and in this case I'm reading the staff report. But we're saying it doesn't meet that criteria anyways -- criterion anyways. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any other questions of staff or the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, thank you. We will close the public hearing and entertain motions. Let's start with the variance. Is there a motion on the variance? COMMISSIONER VONIER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bill? COMMISSIONER VONIER: I move that we deny the variance. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Motion's been made for denial and seconded. You need to state reasons because this will go -- the variance goes to the Board of County Commissioners, I believe, for a final -- or the boat dock. COMMISSIONER VONIER: I think, basically, we're compounded a felony. If the state demanded that that section of the dock be removed because it was encroaching, for us to agree to put a permanent structure back in the same place, I think, is wrong. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And — COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My reason is that there was never a hardship develop. The hardship is you can't lift your boat out of water, so I don't think that's a good enough reason for a variance. And also, when you do apply for a variance, the person I think of is the person that actually honors the code and builds his stuff without variances, and I don't think it would be respectful to those people if we allowed them to put structures in the side setback just so they can lift a boat out of the water. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll be supporting the motion for hard -- I don't see the hardship in this particular Page 83 of 87 Packet Page -177- 4/23/2013 8.A. March 15, 2012 case. That doesn't mean I'm not going to support the boat dock extension. But in this case the variance just -- I can't see the justification for it, so — anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMIS SIGNER VONIER: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Motion caries 7 -1, make note that Mr. Midney had left earlier, so he wasn't here for this particular application. Now for the boat dock extension. Does anybody -- COMMISSIONER AHERN: I'll make a motion to approve BDE- PL2011— 1409 (sic). COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I'll second that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made and seconded. Discussion? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I see no problem with them adding a boat lift on the outside of the deck. Obviously based on the last motion, they can't put it on the inside. So that has to be removed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tim, you wanted to jump in with something? MR. HALL: I'm sorry. If that is the direction that the board wants to go -- and I don't know if we're able to do this or not, but if we have to contemplate putting the larger boat on the outside, then the extension that we've requested may be two feet too short. Can we add two feet to the extension? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, good point. I'd rather see you not have to come back through a process for two additional feet, because you'd still be inside the outside mooring pilings that are still there. MR. HALL: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it would be a less intensive use than the maximum. Does staff see any problems with that if it's considered? MR. BELLOWS: If the request for an extension is greater than what was advertised, we'd have to readvertise. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, that's a good point. It's lesser than what's there, but it may be greater than what was advertised. MR. HALL: And that was my question is I don't know if we can do that or not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Heidi? MR. HALL: I mean, if -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, its been advertised for 34.6 feet. If the petitioner is okay with amending it here and increasing it to 36.6, then I'm okay with it going to the Board of County Commissioners with the 36.6 if it's acceptable -- MR. HALL: Except a BDE doesn't go to the board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, this one stops here. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Oh, it stops here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The variance goes to the board, but the boat dock extension doesn't. Now, since they're going there with a variance anyway, they could appeal our decision on the boat dock extension to request the two feet in front of the board. MR HALL: I'd rather just — if it is an issue, I'd rather take what I can get right now. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me ask — Ray? While they're side - barring -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Since this is the — I wasn't thinking. And since this is the final determination here, if you want to add the two feet, I'd suggest that we readvertise and hear it again. It's late. Sony, I wasn't thinking Page 84 of 87 Packet Page -178- _ -. __ -_ _- 4/23/2013 8.A.- March 15, 2012 about the final -- finality. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER. Ray, since we're considering the dock, now all of this stuff is grandfathered in, correct? MR. BELLOWS: Currently it's grandfathered in under its current L shape. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER. The piles are part of that grandfather. MR. BELLOWS: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So, essentially, the state said that this dock system, this dock facility is allowed to go out to those existing piles, correct? MR. BELLOWS: Without a lift. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So why don't -- well, wiry don't we say, based on that they don't need a boat dock extension because we could deem it that they could build a Iift within the geometry of those existing piles? MR. HALL: Because your code says that the boat lift is a new structure, and because there's no BDE currently in place, we have to get the BDE now. If there was a BDE in place that went out to those pilings, that would be possible. But there is no BDE in place right now. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If what you said is true, then all that stuff you fed us before is crap about the boat — dock being okay. I mean, the piles are just as much of this boat dock facility as the dock. MR. HALL: I agree. But if I wanted to -- if I wanted to go out and move one of those piles, I would still have to come in for a BDE because there's not one existing. Pm changing the -- Pm changing the grandfather footprint. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So we couldn't determine that if he stays within the -- in other words, he's essentially grandfathered in the extension as far as these piles already, and if he works within those, he doesn't need a boat dock extension? MR. BELLOWS: By adding the boat lift is adding a new structure. And under a current code, he would need to get the boat dock extension. Unfortunately, you didn't advertise for that situation, and if he wanted, he'll have to readvertise and come back to you. MR. HALL: I would rather -- I would rather go ahead and put forth the extension as we've asked for it. And if it becomes necessary based on the boat that we have to extend, then we'll just have to look at it then. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you have something, Melissa? COMMISSIONER AHERN: No. I was going to say, you don't want us just to continue it and get the next two -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He'd have to readver(ise it. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Right, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pm not sure you can continue something that's been advertised. MR. HALL: We'll go with what we have now. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Then my motion stands. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So a motion's been made and seconded. Is there any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The motion was to approve boat dock extension as submitted. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER. Well, but, obviously, not allowing the one boat in the side setback. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's not a boat dock extension. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's not part of the extension. Okay, good. It is more than 20 feet out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, did you guys -- I mean, just give me a minute to pull it up, I guess. Did you, under your boat dock extension, consider that side -- oh, yeah, it's there. COMMSSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. MR BELLOWS: Yeah. I think we can just clarify the boat dock extension — CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Without a variance you can't have it. MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. But we can clarify that for consent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The motion then would need to be specific. The motion is made to approve the boat dock extension for the waterward -most lift as shown on this plan and not the lift that is within the easement area. Page 85 of 87 Packet Page -179- 4/23/2013 8.A. March 15, 2012 MR. BELLOWS: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER AHERN: So amended. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And I'm good with that. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Can I ask a question. That goes out beyond 20 feet then? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What does? COMMISSIONER EBERT: This whole thing -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER EBERT: — the extension. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. It would be out to 54.6 feet. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because it's already -- the dock itself was already out to 40.8. So they're just simply adding a lift. And the only lift that we're recommending for approval is that lift at the end of the dock. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: And you'll get a revised site plan that will remove that list for the consent agenda, correct? MR. BELLOWS: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Motion's been made and clarified. The discussion, I hope, is over. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONERAHERN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye, COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8 -0. Thank you all. We got through another one. Old business, I don't see any. New business? Public comment? Well, you have a right to public comment. Heidi, does this have to be new subject, or can they still comment on stuff we already heard? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Under public comment? Yeah, they can comment on whatever they want. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ma'am, go right ahead. Please identify yourself. MS. EVANS: Joan Evans again with a comment. The one thing I wanted to say was when I spoke with the man called Earl Davis, Old Man Davis, that was the original owner of my house, he watched both sides like a hawk. And I know for a fact -- it was in the mid'80s -- there was a dock put up where Art lives now that didn't have a permit, and they made him tear it down completely. And the reason that there was never a boat put out where the pilings are was because Old Man Davis said to Lempka, don't you dare put a boat there. Everything's illegal. If you do, you won't (sic) regret it. CHAIRMAN SPRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It doesn't look like it. So with that, motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONERAHERN: Somoved. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by everybody. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Aye. Page 86 of 87 Packet Page -180- 4/23/2013 8.A. 280 A Wednesday, April 3, 2013 N A P L E S DA I LY N E WS IM9 Ag MMIN6 NOTICE C NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is. hereby given that on Tuesday, April 23, 2013, the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) as the Board of Zoning Appeals will.consider the enactment of a Resolution. The meeting will begin at 9:00 AM. The title of the proposed Resolution is as follows; FRED AND MARCI WAHL ARE REQUESTING AN APPEAL TO THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF A DECISION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION IN DENYING PETITION BDE- PL20120001428 THAT REQUESTED A 21.5 -FOOT BOAT DOCK EXTENSION OVER THE MAXIMUM 20 -FOOT PROTRUSION LIMIT AS PRO- VIDED IN SECTION 5.03.06 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO ALLOW A TOTAL PROTRUSION OF 41.5 FEET FOR A BOAT LIFT ON THE EAST SIDE OF A BOAT DOCK FACILITY IN AN RSF- 420NE ON PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS LOT 11, ISLES OF CAPRI NUMBER 1 SUBDIVISION, IN SECTION 5, TOWNSHIP-52 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST,'IN COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. [PETITION ADA- PL201300000041 NOTE: All Persons wishing to speak on any agenda item must register with the County Administrator PPrior to presentation of the agenda item to be.addressed. Individual speakers will be limited to 3 minutes on any item. The selection of an individual to speak on behalf of an organization or group is encouraged. If recognized by the Chair, a spokesperson for a group or organization may be allotted 10 minutes to speak on an item. Persons wishing to have written or graphic materials included in the Board agenda packets must submit said material a minimum of 3 weeks prior to the respective public hearing. In any case, written materials intended to be considered, by the Board shall be submitted to the appropriate County staff a minimum of seven days prior to the public hearing. All material used in presentations before the Board will become a permanent part of the record. Any person who decides to appeal a decision of the Board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto and therefore, may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the 'proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based. If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this proceeding, you are entitled, at no cost to .you; to the 'provision of certain assistance.. Please contact the Collier County Facilities Management Department, located at 3335 Tamiami Trail East, Building W, Naples, Florida 34112, (239)252 -8380, at least two days prior to the meeting. Assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available in the County Commissioners' Office. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA GEORGIA A. HILLER, ESQ., CHAIRWOMAN DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK By: Maha Vergara, Deputy Clerk Aon1312 013 N6.1984298 Packet Page -181-